Brown v. Rayfield Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

    IN THE

Olnurt xif %  Muiipfr m
October Term, 1963

No.

IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION OF 
JAMES BROWN,

v.
Petitioner,

W. B. RAYFIELD, Chief of Police of City of
Jackson, Mississippi.

IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION OF 
LUCIAN RICHARDS,

v.
Petitioner,

W. B. RAYFIELD, Chief of Police of City of 
Jackson, Mississippi.

PETITION FOR W R IT OF CERTIORARI TO THE 
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

R . J ess B row n , 
L eroy Cl ark , 
D avid H aber, 
Carsie A. H all , 
F r an k  D . R eeves, 

of Counsel.

R obert L . Carter,
B arbara A. M orris,

20 West 40th Street,
New York 18, New York,

H ubert T. D elan y ,
270 Broadway,
New York 7, New York,

J ack  G reenberg,
D errick  A. B ell ,

10 Columbus Circle,
New York 19, N. Y.,

W illiam  R . M in g ,
123 West Madison Street, 
Chicago 2, Illinois,

J ack  H . Y oung ,
115% North Parish Street, 
Jackson, Mississippi,

Attorneys for Petitioners.



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Opinion. B elow ..............................................................  1
Jurisdiction .................................................................. 2
Question Presented ..................................................... 2
Statement ...........   2

Facts and Proceedings Relating Specifically to
This Cause ....................................   2

Background and Setting in Which This Cause 
Arose .................................................................. 6

Reasons for Allowance of the W r it ............................  8
1. The Decisions of this Court Support the Right

to he Free From and to Protest Against 
State Imposed Racial Discrimination and 
Segregation ....................................................  8

2. The Extraordinary Nature of This Case War­
rants Issuance of the Writ Without Requir­
ing Petitioners to Exhaust State Remedies 14

3. This Is an Issue of Great Public Importance
That Requires the Intervention of This 
Court ................................................................ 19

Conclusion.....................................................................  21

Table of Cases

American Optometric Assn. v. Ritholz, 101 F2d 883
(7th Cir. 1939), cert, denied, 307 IT. S. 647 .......... 18

Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U. S. 31 ..........................  8,16
Baines v. City of Danville, Virginia, — F2d — (4th

Cir. decided August 8, 1963) ..................................  18
Baker v. Grice, 169 G. S. 284 .....................................  14
Bates v. Little Rock, 361 IT. S. 516 ............................  9
Bowen v. Johnson, 306 U. S. 19 ................................ 14
Boynton v. Virginia, 364 IT. S. 454 ........................  8

PAGE



11

Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U. S. 622 ....... .................  9
Bridges v. California, 314 U. S. 252 ......................  9
Browder v. Gayle, 142 F. Supp. 707 (M. D. Ala.

1956), aff’d, 352 U. S. 903 ...................................... 18
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 .............  8
Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U. S. 6 0 ............................  10
Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U. S.

715 ............................................................................. 8
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. 8. 296 ................... 10,13
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. 8. 568 ..........  9
Cooper v. Hutchinson, 184 F2d 119 (3d Cir. 1950) .. 18
Copeland v. State, No. 42,722, May 13, 1963 .........  16
CORE v. C. H. Douglas, — F2d — (5th Cir. 1963) . . 10,19 
Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569 ................... 9,11
DeJonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353 ..........................  10
Denton v. City of Carrollton, Georgia, 235 F2d 481

(5th Cir. 1956) ......................................................  18
Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U. S. 157 .........  18
Eastern R.R. Presidents Conference v. Noer Motor

Freezer, Inc., 365 U. S. 127 ................................. 10
Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U. S. 229 .............  10
Ex Parte Green, 114 Fed. 959 (W. D. Ky. 1902) . . .  17
Ex Parte Hawk, 321 U. S. 112 .................................. 14
Ex Parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241 ................................ 14
Fay v. Noia, 372 U. S. 391 .......................................  14,15
Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U. S. 519 ..............................  17
Gayle v. Browder, 352 U. 8. 903 ................................ 8,16
Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Commit­

tee, 372 U. 8. 539 ........... ........................................ 9
Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 IT. S. 339 ......................  9
Goss v. Board of Education of Knoxville, 373 U. S.

683 ............................................................................. 8
Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U. S. 496 .................................. 10
Henderson v. United States, 339 U. S. 8 1 6 .............  8

PAGE



Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U. S. 42 ..............................  10
Hughes v. Superior Court, 339 U. S. 460 . . . . . . . . . . .  11
Irvin v. Dowd, 359 H. S. 394 .....................................  14
Jamison v. Alliance Ins. Co. of Philadelphia, 87 F2d

253 (7th Cir. 1937) ...............................................  18
Johnson v. Virginia, 373 H. S. 6 1 ............................  8
Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U. S. 236 ......................  15
Keys v. Carolina Coach Co., 64 I. C. C. 769 .............  16
Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U. S. 7 7 .................................... 9
Kunz v. New York, 340 U. S. 290 ........................... 10
Louisiana v. N.A.A.C.P., 366 U. S. 293 ........... 6,9,10,18
McLaurin v. Board of Regents, 339 U. S. 637 .........  9
Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U. S. 717 ................. 12
Martin v. Struthers, 319 U. S. 141 ............................  9
Milk Wagon Drivers v. Meadow Moor Dairies, 321

U. S. 287 .................................................................. 11
Morrison v. Davis, 252 F2d 102 (5th Cir. 1958) . . . .  18
N.A.A.C.P. v. Alabama, 357 U. S. 449 ..................... 6, 9
N.A.A.C.P. v. Button, 371 U S. 4 1 5 ........................  9
N.A.A.C.P. v. Gallion, 290 F2d 357 (5th Cir. 1961) .. 6
NA.A.C.P. v. St. Louis & San Francisco Ry. Co., 297

I. C. C. 335 .............................................................. 16
National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin

Co., 301 IT. S. 1 ......................................................  11
Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. S. 697 ............................  10
New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co., 303 

IT. S. 552 .................................................................  11
Peterson v. City of Greenville, 373 IT. S. 244 .........  8
Plumbers Union v. Graham, 345 U. S. 192 .............  11
Pugach v. Dollinger, 275 F2d 503 (2d Cir. 1960) . . . .  18
Rea v. United States, 350 U. S. 2 1 4 ........................  18
Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476 ........................  9
Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1 ............................  8
Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479 ............................  10,13

I l l
PAGE



IV

Smith V. California, 361 U. S. 1 4 7 ........................9,10,12
Southern California Petroleum Corp. v. Harper, 273

F2d 715 (5th Cir. 1960) .......................................  14
Speiser v. Randall, 357 IT. S. 513 ..........................  10,12
Spielman Motor Sales Co. v. Dodge, 295 U. S. 89 .. 18
Staub v. Baxley, 355 IT. S. 313 ................................  11
Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 323 IT. S.

192 ............................................................................. 8
Stefannelli v. Minard, 342 IT. S. 1 1 7 ........................  18
Strauder v. Virginia, 100 IT. S. 303 ....................... 8
Stromberg v. Carlson, 283 U. S. 359 ........................  10
Sweatt v. Painter, 339 IT. S. 639 ..............................  9
Teamsters Union v. Vogt, 354 U. S. 284 ................... 11
Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 5 1 6 ..............................  9
Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 86 ........................  10,13
Tinsley v. Anderson, 171 U. S. 101 ........................  14
United States v. Carotene Products Co., 304 U. S.

144 ............................................................................. 9
United States v. Fay, 248 F2d 520 (2d Cir. 1957) . . 15
Urquhart v. Brown, 205 U. S. 179 ...................... 14,15,18
Watson v. Bush, 313 U. S. 387 .................................. 18
Watson v. City of Memphis, 373 U. S. 526 .............  8, 20
Whalen v. Frisbie, 185 F2d 607 (7th Cir. 1950) . . .  15
Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507 ..........................  10
Wright v. Georgia, 373 U. S. 284 ...........................  13
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 536

PAGE

11



IN' THE

^upratte (Emtrt at %  Inttpb States
October Term, 1963 

No.

----------------------o----------------------
I n th e  M atter  oe A pplication  op J ames B ro w n ,

Petitioner,
v.

W . B . R ayfield , Chief of Police of City of 
Jackson, Mississippi.

I n  th e  M atter op A pplication  op L u cian  R ichards,
Petitioner,

v.

W . B . R ayfield , Chief of Police of City of 
Jackson, Mississippi.

----------------------o—---- — —— —

PETITION FOR W RIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE 
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Petitioners pray that a writ of certiorari issue to 
review the "judgment of the Court of Appeals entered on 
July 1, 1963.

Opinion Below

The opinion of the Court of Appeals is not yet reported. 
It is set out in the appendix hereto, infra at page 23.



2

Jurisdiction

The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals 
was entered on July 1, 1963, and is printed in the appendix 
hereto, infra at page 28. The jurisdiction of this Court 
is invoked pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Sec­
tion 1254(1). The Court of Appeals on July 15, 1963, 
recalled and stayed issuance of its July 1, 1963, judgment 
and mandate, to and including August 15, 1963, and pend­
ing final disposition by this Court, provided on or before 
August 15, 1963, a petition for writ of certiorari was filed 
in this Court (R. 124).

Question Presented

Whether the circumstances of this case, where persons 
are being subjected to deprivations of liberty, punishment, 
trials, appeals, costs and delays incident thereto for the 
attempted exercise of established and settled Fourteenth 
Amendment guarantees, present those extraordinary cir­
cumstances and conditions which warrant exercise of 
federal writ of habeas corpus without prerequisite ex­
haustion of state remedies?

Statement

Facts and Proceedings Relating Specifically 
to This Cause

On June 5, 1963, petitioners, James Brown and Lucian 
Richards, were arrested by the police of the City of Jack- 
son, held in jail and charged with parading without a per­
mit in violation of City Ordinance No. 594 (R. 1, 42). The 
Ordinance provides:

That it shall be unlawful for any person, firm or 
corporation to have any parade, along, over or upon 
any street or avenue of the City of Jackson or to use 
by driving over or across or upon any of the streets



3

or avenues of the City of Jackson, Mississippi, with­
out first obtaining a permit from the Mayor for 
such parade and providing further that any per­
son, firm, corporation or association shall not use 
any other street or avenue than those designated.

On June 7, 1963, applications were made in the court 
below on behalf of each petitioner for writs of habeas 
corpus pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 
2241, on the ground that petitioners’ arrests and incarcera­
tion were in clear violation of their rights and privileges 
under the Fourteenth xlmendment to the Constitution of 
the United States, and that the intervention of the federal 
court was essential because the full power of the State of 
Mississippi, including city governmental officials, law en­
forcement officers and the judiciary, had been marshalled 
to maintain and enforce racial segregation, and to prohibit 
and cut off any public protest against the same (R. 1-3, 
42-46).

By order of United States District Judge Cox, the two 
causes were consolidated and hearing thereon set down 
for June 8, 1963 (R. 20). On that date, an order to show 
cause was issued, returnable on June 11, 1963 (R. 5). On 
June 11, Judge Cox signed an order making the return 
date June 12, 1963 (R. 17), and requiring production of 
petitioners before Judge Mize at Biloxi, Mississippi (R. 
17).

On June 10, respondent filed answers in each cause (R. 
10-16, 51-56). He admitted petitioners’ arrests and al­
leged that they were charged “ with willfully and unlaw­
fully participating with others in a parade upon a public 
street of the City of Jackson without first having obtained 
a permit * * *”  (R. 10, 51). Respondent stated that “ ten­
sion was extremely high in the City of Jackson”  as a result 
of numerous planned law violations consisting of illegal 
demonstrations, and that no parade permits were being 
granted, and that on May 28, 1963, the local Shriners were



4

refused a permit to parade (E. 12-13, 53-54). Respondent 
contended that the writ should not issue since none of the 
state remedies, including securing petitioners’ release on 
bonds of $225.00, trial in the municipal court, appeal to, or 
trials de novo in the county court, appeal to circuit court, 
Mississippi Supreme Court and United States Supreme 
Court, had been exhausted (R. 11, 14-15, 51, 55-56).

On June 12 at the hearing below, testimony was ad­
duced showing that petitioners were adults, of Negro origin 
and citizens of the United States; that petitioner, James 
Brown, until approximately six weeks before his arrest, 
was a resident of New York (R. 75, 90); and that petitioner, 
Lucian Richards, had been a resident of St. Louis until a 
few days before his confinement (R. 78).1

At the time of their arrests, petitioners and all of 
their companions were wearing T-shirts with the letters 
“ N.A.A.C.P.”  on the front and “ Freedom Now”  on the 
back. Each member of the group was carrying an Ameri­
can flag. All were neat and clean, and there was no evi­
dence that petitioners or their companions had been 
conducting themselves in a loud, disorderly or boisterous 
manner, had ruptured the public peace and tranquility in 
any way, had blocked or interfered with the use of the 
sidewalks and streets by other persons or had been guilty 
of any unlawful conduct other than appear on the streets 
in the manner indicated (R. 81, 89, 90, 91, 94, 99).

Petitioner Brown was with a group of four, and peti­
tioner Richards was with five other persons (R. 80). The 
two groups were walking independently and separated from 
one another. Each was headed for Capitol Street, the 
main downtown thoroughfare in Jackson. They were walk­
ing in tandem, each person separated from the next by 
about five feet. They were walking on the sidewalk next

1 The Petitions were amended to reflect the residence of peti­
tioners upon counsel’s oral motion prior to the taking of testimony 
(R. 79).



5

to the curb. They neither incommoded nor interfered with 
the movement of persons or vehicles (R. 81, 90, 95). 
Richards’ group had progressed about 1% blocks towards 
the center of the city when they were stopped by the police, 
asked whether they had a permit to parade, and when the 
answer was in the negative, all were placed under arrest 
(R. 81). Brown’s group had proceeded about a block 
before being arrested, without any question being raised 
concerning their having a permit (R. 91).

Both petitioners admitted that they and their com­
panions had gathered together for the purpose of making 
a public protest in downtown Jackson against racial segre­
gation and discrimination.

After hearing the evidence summarized above and argu­
ment, the district court denied the applications on the 
ground that all state remedies had not been exhausted and 
retained jurisdiction pending completion of all state pro­
ceedings (R. 18, 59). On June 13, 1963, Judge John Minor 
Wisdom granted and signed a certificate of probable cause 
(R. 19, 60). On June 17, 1963, the district court, on request 
of counsel, stayed all state proceedings pending appeal to 
the United States Court of Appeals (R. 36, 68).

Motion for immediate hearing was granted by Judge, 
Richard T. Rives on June 14, 1963, and the cause set down 
for hearing before the Court of Appeals in Montgomery, 
Alabama on June 26 (R. 76). Notice of appeal, designa­
tion of record on appeal and statement of points relied 
upon were filed and served on June 14 (R. 29-35, 61-68). 
On June 15, petitioners were released on appearance bonds 
of $100 each (R. 104-105). On June 18 an amended designa­
tion of the record was filed (R. 37-38, 69-78). After hearing 
on June 26, the Court of Appeals, on July 1, 1963, filed an 
opinion and judgment dismissing the appeal (R. 116-123). 
From this opinion and judgment, petitioners bring the 
cause to this Court.



6

Background and Setting in Which This Cause Arose

On or about May 28, 1963, the National Association for 
the Advancement of Colored People, a national organiza­
tion whose basic objective is to improve the status of 
Negroes in the United States by use of normal democratic 
processes, see N.A.A.C.P. v. Alabama, 357 U, S. 449; 
Louisiana v. N.A.A.C.P., 366 U. S. 293; N.A.A.C.P. v. Gal- 
lion, 290 F2d 357 (5th Cir. 1961), its members and sup­
porters began to conduct a campaign in peaceful protest 
against the policies, practices and customs in the City of 
Jackson of enforced racial segregation and discrimination. 
The protest included picketing places of public accommo­
dation practicing discrimination, requests for service at 
eating establishments heretofore open only to white per­
sons, the carrying of signs with insignia such as “ Freedom 
Now,”  the wearing of T-shirts lettered “ N.A.A.C.P.”  and 
“ Freedom Now,”  and the carrying of the American flag 
in downtown areas of the city, praying in front of City 
Hall and on the steps of public buildings. The persons par­
ticipating in these peaceful protests were both Negro and 
white. All were orderly, clean and well-mannered. They 
did not block sidewalks, ingress and egress of any public 
buildings, or interfere with movement of persons or traffic 
on the sidewalks or streets of the city (ft. 6-9).

On May 28, three (3) persons attempted to purchase 
food in a Woolworth lunchroom on Capitol Street and 
were refused. They were attacked and harassed by white 
on-lookers in the store. One of the group was severely 
beaten. Neither the management of the store nor police 
took any steps to protect these persons from bodily harm, 
and they were arrested by the city police.

On the same day, five (5) persons who attempted to 
picket Penny’s Department Store, carrying signs calling 
for the end of racial segregation in Jackson, were arrested 
by city police within five minutes of the time the picketing 
began.



7

On May 29, nine (9) persons attempted to obtain serv­
ice at Primos Restaurant and to picket Penny’s Depart­
ment Store. All were arrested by the police.

On May 31, fourteen (14) persons attempted to pray 
on the public steps of the United States Post Office Build­
ing. They were immediately arrested by the police, al­
though there was no charge that they had in any way 
barred access to the Post Office.

On May 31, approximately three hundred and fifty 
(350) persons attempted to make a protest march from a 
church in the Negro section of the town to the downtown 
business district. The marchers carried signs protesting 
segregation. They were orderly, but within a few minutes 
after leaving the church they were met, halted and arrested 
by city police.

On June 1, 1963, three (3) persons, including Medgar 
Evers, now deceased, and Roy Wilkins, Executive Secre­
tary of the N.A.A.C.P., attempted to picket Woolworth’s, 
carrying anti-segregation signs. They were immediately 
arrested by city police and charged with restraint of trade.

On June 3, six (6) pickets appeared on Capitol Street 
carrying signs calling for desegregation and were immedi­
ately arrested by city police.

On June 4, thirty-three (33) persons attempted to 
picket and to hold a demonstration of prayer in front of the 
City Hall and were immediately arrested by city police.

On June 5, nine (9) persons, wearing shirts with the 
letters “ NAACP”  on front and “ Freedom Now”  on back 
and carrying American flags, attempted to walk on Capitol 
Street and were immediately arrested by city police (R. 
7-8).

All of these persons were required to post cash bonds 
ranging from $100 to $1,000 to obtain their release (R. 8). 
As of the present, appeal bonds posted in county and



8

city courts have reached the amount of $93,500 for 350 
persons charged with various violations of Mississippi law 
(Appendix at page 29).

On June 12, Medgar Evers was murdered by being shot 
to death in the hack.

REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE WRIT

1. The Decisions of this Court Support the Right to be 
Free From and to Protest Against State Imposed Racial 
Discrimination and Segregation

Racial discrimination enforced, sustained or supported 
by any manifestation of state authority is clearly pro­
scribed by the Fourteenth Amendment barring distinctions 
and classifications based upon race or color. The con­
stitutional validity of this issue is foreclosed as a litigable 
question. See Goss v. Board of Education of Knoxville, 
373 TJ. S. 683 (transfers between public schools); Watson 
v. City of Memphis, 373 U. S. 526 (public parks and play­
grounds ; Peterson v. City of Greenville, 373 U. S. 244 
(trespass convictions where local segregation ordinances 
preempt private choice); Johnson v. Virginia, 373 U. S. 
61 (seating in courtrooms); Burton v. Wilmington Park­
ing Authority, 365 U. S. 715 (restaurants in public build­
ings) ; Boynton v. Virginia, 364 IJ. S. 454 (bus terminals 
serving passengers in interstate commerce); Henderson 
v. United States, 339 IJ. S. 816 (dining cars on interstate 
railroads); Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U. S. 31 (facilities in 
interstate commerce); Gayle v. Browder, 352 IJ. S. 903 
(facilities in intrastate commerce); Strauder v. Virginia, 
100 U. S. 303 (discrimination in jury selection); Shelley 
v. Kraemer, 334 IJ. S. 1 (state enforcement of restrictive 
covenants); Steele v. Louisville $  Nashville R.R. Co., 323 
U. S. 192 (discrimination practiced by statutory collective 
bargaining agent designated pursuant to federal statute); 
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. 8. 483 (public



9

schools); Sweatt v. Painter, 339 II. S. 639 (professional 
schools); McLaurin v. Board of Regents, 339 U. S. 637 
(graduate schools); Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 IT. S. 339 
(geographical redistricting).

Equally settled is the primacy in our society accorded 
the unfettered exercise of rights of freedom of speech and 
association. See United States v. Carotene Products Co., 
304 IT. S. 144, 152, note 4; Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U. S. 77, 
95. Included in this constitutionally privileged area, in 
recognition of the enhancement of effective advocacy by 
group association, is the advancement of beliefs and ideas 
through group activity. See N.A.A.C.P. v. Alabama, 357 
IT. S. 449; Bates v. Little Rock, 361 IT. S. 516; Louisiana 
v. N.A.A.C.P., 366 U. S. 293; N.A.A.C.P. v. Button, 371 
IT. S. 415; Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Com­
mittee, 372 IT. S. 539. State prohibition of the exercise 
of these freedoms will be sustained only upon a showing 
of a clear and present danger, Bridges v. California, 314 
U. S. 252, and regulations incidentally limiting the un­
fettered exercise of freedom of speech and association 
are permissible only where justified by a subordinating 
societal interest of compelling importance. See Roth v. 
United States, 354 IT. S. 476; Smith v. California, 361 IT. S. 
147; Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 IT. S. 569; Chaplinsky v. 
New Hampshire, 315 IT. S. 568; Breard v. Alexandria, 341 
IT. S. 622. Valid intrusion upon these rights requires that 
the regulations imposed bear a reasonable relationship to 
the objective to be achieved. See N.A.A.C.P. v. Alabama, 
supra; Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Com­
mittee, supra.

Free trade in ideas means freedom of opportunity to 
persuade to action, not merely to describe facts. Thomas 
v. Collins, 323 IT. S. 516, 537. Thus protected are lawful 
activities designed to further one’s views, N.A.A.C.P. v. 
Button, supra; the dissemination of handbills, Martin v. 
Struthers, 319 IT. S. 141; solicitation of political allies, Hern­



1 0

don v. Lowry, 301 U. S. 42; proselytism, Cantwell v. Connec­
ticut, 310 U. S. 296; silent display of political convictions, 
Stromberg v. Carlson, 283 U. S. 359; peaceful picketing, 
Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 86; protection against prior 
censorship, Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. 8. 697; petition of 
state legislature for redress of grievances concerning en­
forced racial discrimination, Edwards v. South Carolina, 
372 U. 8. 229; and solicitation of governmental action. Cf. 
Eastern R. R. Presidents Conference v. Noer Motor Freezer, 
Inc., 365 U. S. 127,138.

Broad prophylactic rules in the area of free expression 
are suspect. See Near v. Minnesota, supra; Shelton v. 
Tucker, 364 U. S. 479; Louisiana v. N.A.A.C.P., 366 U. S. 
293; Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513; Kuns v. New York, 
340 U. S. 290; DeJonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353. And 
where permitted and prohibited conduct is ambiguously 
defined, the statute is presumed to encroach unlawfully 
upon constitutionally protected activities. In sum, stand­
ards of permissible vagueness are strict where freedom of 
speech and association rights are involved. See Smith 
v. California, supra; Winters v. Neiv York, 333 U. S. 507, 
509-510, 517-518; Thornhill v. Alabama, supra, at pages 
97-98. Freedom of speech includes the right to advocate 
unpopular views. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 IT. S. 296; 
Hague v. C.I.O., 307 IT. S. 496; Edwards v. South Carolina, 
supra; CORE v. C. H. Douglas, — F2d — (5th Cir. 1963).

The protest demonstrations which took place were 
peaecful and what was being espoused was clearly lawful. 
Edwards v. South, Carolina, supra, and cannot be suppressed 
under the guise of maintaining public peace. See Buchanan 
v. Warley, 245 U. S. 60 ; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310: U. S. 
296.

Picketing, being more than speech, may, under certain 
circumstances, be subject to restraints not usually imposed 
upon the exercise of freedom of expression. Here, however, 
the picketing was not connected with violence, see Milk



11

Wagon Drivers v. Meadow Moor Dairies, 321 U. S. 287; 
Plumbers Union v. Graham, 345 U. S. 192; nor was it under­
taken to achieve goals contrary to a valid state policy. 
Hughes v. Superior Court, 339 U. S. 460; Teamsters Union 
v. Vogt, 354 U. S. 284. What is involved was a lawful at­
tempt to vindicate a valid social goal. Cf. New Negro Alli­
ance v. Sanitary Grocery Co., 303 U. S. 552.

In viewing the facts in this case, one must remember 
what is at stake. A group of citizens joined together to 
evidence public dissatisfaction with and opposition to racial 
discrimination. They did not control any of the great 
modern communications media, such as newspapers, radio 
or television stations, or public office. But they could carry 
placards, wear symbolic clothing and walk upon the streets 
of Jackson evidencing their revolt against racial depriva­
tions. The power to control or regulate the orderly use of 
the streets by local police authorities cannot be misused 
to deprive persons of fundamental liberty. See Yick Wo 
v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 536; Cf. Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 
U. S. 569, and see Staub v. Baxley, 355 U. S. 313.

The right of members of various unions to protest in 
concert stems from the similarity of their positions and 
from the mutuality of their desire to improve their condi­
tion by persuading an employer to institute fair and more 
profitable measures. See National Labor Relations Board 
v. Jones & Laughlm Co., 301 IT. S. 1. In essence, it is the 
effect of the employer’s practices upon the entire complex 
labor structure that gives rise to the necessity of concerted 
action. Similarly, the practice of discrimination against 
Negroes by proprietors of public accommodations, by the 
state government’s denial of access to public facilities and 
its encouragement of segregation in employment and hous­
ing, affects every Negro in that community and, in reality, 
every Negro in the country. Unlike a labor union, no 
choice is afforded the Negro who is a lifetime member of



12

Ms minority group. All that sustains the right of concerted 
protest by unions is doubly true for Negroes as a group. 
Implicit in the right of the Negro to seek equality by lawful 
means is the right to join together with others to further 
and foster his claim to full-fledged citizenship in every 
aspect of American life.

Petitioners are charged with parading without a permit 
in violation of City Ordinance No. 594. Petitioners were 
members of two independent groups walking single file 
along the public streets of Jackson. One group consisted 
of six persons, and the other five. They were not in physical 
proximity. There was no showing of any interference with 
public use of the streets. Petitioners were carrying Ameri­
can flags and wore shirts reflecting “ Freedom Now.”  The 
wearing of such apparel on public streets is clearly a form 
of expression, protected against state intrusion.

Of course, the state may regulate the use of its streets 
for purposes of a parade. That term is defined in the 
Webster’s Dictionary as:

A pompous show; the ceremonial formation of 
a body of troops; the area upon which troops 
regularly assemble in such formation; any march 
or procession; especially a formal public procession.

It is also defined as a verb: “ To exhibit in a showy 
manner; to cause to march ceremoniously.”

Ordinances subject to sweeping and improper applica­
tion in the area of free expression are proscribed by the 
Fourteenth Amendment. Cf. Marcus v. Search Warrant, 
367 U. S. 717, 733. The threatened use of such ordinances 
deters the exercise of First Amendment rights and is there­
fore as objectionable as application itself. See Smith v. 
California, supra, at pages 151-154; Speiser v. Randall, 
supra, at page, 526. The Jackson ordinance does not ex­
pressly proscribe the activities for which petitioners were



13

arrested, hence their arrests were unlawful. Conversely, 
if the ordinance does forbid petitioners’ activities, it is 
fatally defective on grounds of vagueness. See Wright v. 
Georgia, 373 U. S. 284.

No state may, without more, prohibit and make criminal 
persons walking in tandem in groups of five and six on 
the city’s sidewalks. Application of the ordinance in ques­
tion by the police in so broad and imprecise a manner, as 
to condemn lawful as well as unlawful activity, renders that 
ordinance invalid. See Thornhill v. Alabama, supra; Cant­
well v. Connecticut, supra; Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479.

The state’s purpose is to arrest petitioners and the 
other peaceful demonstrators, to require them to engage 
attorneys and stand trial in the Municipal Court, appeal 
to the County Court, Circuit Court, State Supreme Court 
and ultimately to this Court for doing something they have 
every right to do. Throughout this period, to remain 
free, petitioners must post bond which increases at each 
level of appeal. This is flagrant misuse of state process 
to frustrate exercise of basic rights, a scheme which must 
not be allowed to succeed. It seems clear that petitioners 
cannot be legally placed in state custody and deprived of 
their freedom or required to go through lengthy state 
procedures, including a petition to this Court, to vindicate 
their rights, merely because they walked on the streets 
of Jackson.



14

2. The Extraordinary Nature of This Case Warrants
Issuance of the Writ Without Requiring Petitioners to
Exhaust State Remedies

Initially, petitioners must meet the apparent restric­
tions to their applications set forth in Title 28, United 
States Code, Section 2254 and the underlying philosophy 
codified in Title 28, United States Code, Section 2283, 
against federal interruption of state criminal prosecutions.

A. While the federal courts do not issue writs of 
habeas corpus where an applicant is in state custody until 
all available remedies provided in the state court have 
been exhausted, in rare instances where exceptional circum­
stances of peculiar urgency are shown to exist, the writ 
will issue. See Ex Parte Hawk, 321 U. S. 112; Irvin v. 
Dowd, 359 U. S. 394, 405; Tinsley v. Anderson, 171 U. S. 
101, 104, 105; Southern California Petroleum Corporation 
v. Harper, 273 F2d 715 (5th Cir. 1960). In following the 
practice of refusing to interfere while state proceedings 
are pending or available, federal courts apply a doctrine of 
abstention based, not upon an absence of jurisdiction to 
grant relief, but upon the exercise of sound discretion, 
Bowen v. Johnson, 306 U. S. 19, 27, stemming from con­
siderations of comity deemed necessary to the preservation 
of the delicate balance of the federal-state relationship. 
See Urquhart v. Brown, 205 U. S. 179; Ex Parte Boyall, 
117 U. S. 241; Baker v. Grice, 169 U. S. 284 ; Fay v. Noia, 
372 U. S. 391. Title 28, United States Code, Section 2254, 
is merely a codification of this long established practice 
of the courts of the United States. Abstention based upon 
discretion is no mere sterile dogma to be utilized without 
regard to the facts and situations before the court. There is 
power to act and such power may be used to grant relief in 
an appropriate case. See Urquhart v. Brown, supra.

Federal habeas corpus procedure is available upon the 
failure of a state to provide process whereby a prisoner 
can obtain redress for constitutional defects in his restraint 
or conviction, or while providing such process, effects an



15

arbitrary preclusion from its use. United States v. Fay, 
248 F2d 520 (2d Cir. 1957). Similarly, release by reason 
of a federally issued writ of habeas corpus is equally avail­
able where recourse to state process would be futile and 
useless. In such circumstances, no real state remedy exists. 
See Whalen v. Frisbie, 185 F2d 607 (7th Cir. 1950).

The great writ of habeas corpus has always been avail­
able as prompt and efficacious remedy for whatever 
society deems to be an intolerable restraint. Under our 
system the theory has been that governmental officials 
must be accountable for a man’s imprisonment and if 
custody is without conformity to basic law, immediate 
release is mandatory. See Fay v. Noia, supra. In order 
to preserve in our system the basic purposes of the Great 
Writ, courts have departed from the doctrine of abstention 
where exceptional circumstances of great urgency warrant 
exercise of the power of the United States to protect feder­
ally secured rights. See Urquhart v. Brown, supra. The 
question presented in this petition, therefore, is whether this 
case reveals those unusual circumstances and conditions 
which warrant a departure from usual procedure and 
require this Court to grant petitioners’ application for writ 
of habeas corpus. The fact that petitioners were released 
on bail does not affect their right to the writ herein sought. 
Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U. S. 236.

A presumption that state officials will enforce the Con­
stitution is controlling. But where a particular state is 
embarked upon an opposite course of flagrant denial of 
federally secured rights, such presumption is destroyed. 
This Court knows and, it is respectfully submitted, should 
take judicial notice of the fact that the State of Mississippi 
is openly and officially engaged in conduct designed to 
frustrate and defeat rights in the area of race relations 
declared by this Court to be inviolate.

B. The action taken by city authorities follows the 
pattern applied in the so-called “ Freedom Bides.”  In that 
situation persons sought to use unsegregated travel facili­



16

ties in. interstate and intrastate commerce in Mississippi. 
Gayle v. Browder, supra, decided in 1956, and N.A.A.C.P. 
v. St. Louis <fb San Francisco By. Co., 297 I. C. C. 335, 
decided in 1955, and Keys v. Carolina Coach Co., 64 1. C. C. 
769, decided in 1955, had clearly established the freedom 
of persons to travel without discrimination based upon 
race in interstate and intrastate commerce. And see Bailey 
v. Patterson, supra. Despite the unquestioned guarantees 
of the federal Constitution, those persons, who sought free 
access to travel accommodations in Mississippi, were 
charged with violations of state law, subjected to heavy 
fines, penalties and inconveniences, forced to stand trial, 
post bond and appeal their cases through the state courts. 
Approximately 300 persons were arrested in Jackson at 
the railroad depot, at the airport and at bus stations; 280 
were individually tried and convicted in Municipal Court; 
individual trials de novo were held in the County Court. 
All were convicted except 55 who entered please of nolle 
contendere; 4 were acquitted; 2 served sentences imposed 
by the lower court. Sentences were usually 4 months in 
jail and $200 fine. Appeals were filed individually in the 
Circuit Court and 67 briefs have been submitted thus far.

When the first of these cases reached the Mississippi 
Supreme Court, a motion was filed to hold the balance in 
the Circuit Court pending action by the Supreme Court of 
Mississippi, and then to hear all cases on a consolidated 
basis. That motion was overruled. See John Lee Cope­
land v. State, No. 42,722, May 13, 1963.

In the Circuit Court, a separate brief is required for 
each appellant, and one day is set aside for oral argument 
of each case. Convictions have been affirmed in each of 
the 20 cases thus far heard. Appeal bonds are $500 cash 
for each person, and the N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense and 
Educational Fund, Inc. has posted $65,000 in bonds and 
incurred at least $20,000 in legal expenses thus far. 
Ultimately, this Court is going to reverse all these convic­
tions summarily—see Bailey v. Patterson, supra, but in the



17

meantime Mississippi is allowed to subject persons to pains 
and penalties which the federal Constitution proscribes.

C. The instant case is on all fours with Ex Parte Green, 
114 Fed. 959 (W. D. Ky. 1902), where the court issued the 
writ, even though available state remedies had not been 
pursued. There petitioner was tried and convicted in a 
police court and fined, pursuant to an ordinance taxing 
persons travelling from residence to residence, soliciting 
orders or selling directly. The facts disclosed that peti­
tioner worked for a company in Ohio. Petitioner himself 
never delivered any purchase directly. He merely received 
orders and notified his office in Ohio, where the orders were 
filled. Petitioner refused to pay the tax, was tried in a 
police court in Kentucky and fined $10.00. In granting the 
writ of habeas corpus, the court based relief largely upon 
the fact that prior decisions of this Court left no doubt 
that the tax was unlawful and that petitioner’s imprison­
ment could not be upheld. These facts, together with the 
resultant injustice and hardship, were found to be al­
together disproportionate to the offense involved. The 
court said, at page 961, that to require petitioner to process 
an appeal would ordinarily be correct, but where “ consti­
tutional law governing the writ has been so conclusively 
adjudicated and determined by the highest Court and 
where the injustice and hardship pending a perfectly un­
availing and useless retrial in a state court of the law 
questions involved, with petitioner being in jail for a time 
or subjected to other practical inconveniences and ex­
penses,”  made necessary granting of relief prayed for.

In Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U. S. 519, this Court said, at 
pages 521, 522, that the writ should be denied if state cor­
rective process was available, but that this rule was not 
rigid or inflexible and that deviations therefrom should 
be made in special circumstances. Whether such circum­
stances exist, call for a factual appraisal by the court in 
each special situation.



18

In Urquhart v. Brown, supra, this Court held that the 
exceptional case in which the federal court might appro­
priately interfere with the state process by habeas corpus 
in advance of final action by authorities of the state were 
those of great urgency.

D. The rationale of Stefannelli v. Minard, 342 U. S. 
117, and Douglas v. City of Jeannette, 319 U. S. 157, is in­
apposite. In neither case was irreparable injury involved 
justifying the intervention of the federal court, and neither 
case stands for the proposition that federal interference 
is not permissible under some circumstances. Such injunc­
tions are not granted as a matter of course, Watson v. 
Bush, 313 U. S. 387, 400, but where exceptional circum­
stances exist and a showing of necessity is made for the 
adequate protection of basic constitutional rights, the 
courts have enjoined state proceedings. Spielman Motor 
Sales Co. v. Dodge, 295 U. S. 89, 95; Baines v. City of Dan­
ville, Virginia, — F2d —- (4th Cir. decided August 8, 1963). 
See in accord: Rea v. United States, 350 U. S. 214; Pugach 
v. Doilinger, 275 F2d 503 (2d Cir. 1960); Denton v. City of 
Carrollton, Georgia, 235 F2d 481 (5th Cir. 1956); Cooper 
v. Hutchinson, 184 F2d 119 (3d Cir. 1950); Jamison v. Al­
liance Ins. Co. of Philadelphia, 87 F2d 253 (7th Cir. 1937); 
American Optometric Assn. v. Rithols, 101 F2d 883 (7th Cir. 
1939), cert denied, 307 U. S. 647; NAACP v. Louisiana, 181 
F. Supp. 37 (E. D. La. 1960), aff’d, 366 U. S. 293; Morri­
son v. Davis, 252 F2d 102, 103 (5th Cir. 1958), and in Brow­
der v. Gayle, 142 F. Supp. 707 (M. D. Ala, 1956), aff’d, 352 
U. S. 903.

Under all the circumstances outlined above, considera­
tions of comity or concern about the delicate balance of our 
state-federal relationship would appear to be misplaced. 
Indeed, comity requires recognition by the states of the 
supremacy of federal authority. Where that recognition is 
refused, application of considerations of comity whereby



19

exercise of federal power to insure the unfettered exer­
cise of federal rights is withheld is acquiescence in a fla­
grant denial and frustration of federal policy.

3. This Is an Issue of Great Public Importance That
Requires the Intervention of This Court

Public confidence in the rule of law cannot he preserved, 
where a state is free to deny unquestioned rights, to sub­
ject persons to damage, injury and great inconvenience 
merely because they seek to exercise rights guaranteed to 
all persons within the confines of the United States.

This situation is more serious than the Freedom Rides. 
For here the arrests, the fines and subjection to penalties 
not only violate petitioners’ rights of freedom of speech 
and assembly in the first instance, but is intended and 
does constitute a prior restraint on the exercise of these 
rights. See Congress of Racial Equality v. C. //. Douglas, 
supra.

Here, over 600 persons have been arrested. Appeal 
bonds in the sum of approximately $100;,000 have been 
posted already. The cases are only at the County Court 
level. There they must be tried de novo. Additional and 
higher appeal bonds will be required to x>erfeet appeals to 
the Circuit Court, Then, after hearing in the Circuit 
Courts, additional and higher appeal bonds are required 
to appeal to the Supreme Court of Mississippi. If the pat­
tern adopted in the Freedom Rides is followed, as it 
has been thus far, each of these cases and appeals must 
be argued separately and individual briefs filed in each 
case at each level. Before this procedure is finished, ex­
penditures of $500,000 may be required in the appellate 
courts of Mississippi. While this is staggering enough, 
there is also the needless waste of funds for lawyers’ fees 
and time and personnel in defending and vindicating rights



20

which, everyone knows are clearly established. The great 
vice of this process is its effective and intolerable frustra­
tion of the attempted exercise of basic citizenship rights 
by Negro citizens in Jackson. The political climate is such 
in Mississippi that it is pure fantasy to anticipate that 
the state courts will settle these appeals in accord with 
the Fourteenth Amendment’s mandate. This is clearly a 
studied effort to discourage assertion in Mississippi of 
basic freedoms secured under the fundamental law. More­
over, denial of this petition will aid in Mississippi’s pro­
gram of resistance to the law of the land and in the use of 
dilatory tactics condemned in Watson v. City of Memphis, 
supra. Certainly, the national interest would seem to re­
quire that the federal courts step in, to secure the enforce­
ment of federal guarantees and to insure the supremacy of 
federal law. One of the fundamental uses of the Great 
Writ is to enable courts to meet intolerable interferences 
with individual freedom of the sort practiced here.

Negroes are peacefully asserting, through demonstra­
tions, like those attempted here, their determination to 
exercise equal citizenship rights. Pent-up frustrations are 
being expended in peaceful protest, with the optimistic 
hope and expectation that this protest will inspire the 
American conscience to conform the reality of discrimina­
tion to the principle of equality and justice. No state should 
be permitted to use state process to frustrate and defeat 
basic citizenship rights. And where, as here, it is clear that 
this is precisely what is taking place, federal habeas corpus 
should lie.



21

CONCLUSION

Wherefore, for the reasons hereinabove stated, it 
is respectfully submitted, the exceptional nature of the 
circumstances herein described warrant granting the 
writ of habeas corpus applied for below and the grant­
ing of this petition.

R . J ess B ro w n , 
L eroy C l ark , 
D avid H aber, 
Carsie A. H all , 
F ran k  D . R eeves, 

of Counsel.

R obert L . C arter,
B arbara A. M orris,

20 West 40th Street,
New York 18, New York,

H ubert T. D elan y ,
270 Broadway,
New York 7, New York,

J ack  G reenberg,
D errick  A. B ell ,

10 Columbus Circle,
New York 19, N. Y.,

W illiam  R . M in g ,
123 West Madison Street, 
Chicago 2, Illinois,

J ack  H . Y oung ,
115% North Farish Street, 
Jackson, Mississippi,

Attorneys for Petitioners.



23

APPENDIX

Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Fifth Circuit

(July 1, 1963)

Before:
T u ttle , Chief Judge, R ives and Ge w ik , 

Circuit Judges.

T u ttle , Chief Judge:

These are two appeals, consolidated for the purpose 
of the hearing in this Court, from a denial by the United 
States District Court for the Southern District of Missis­
sippi of the applications by the two appellants for writs 
of habeas corpus seeking their release from the municipal 
jail of the city of Jackson, Mississippi. Appellants con­
tend that they were arrested and imprisoned illegally by 
the respondent, having been charged with a violation of 
a city ordinance (No. 594) of the city of Jackson, Missis­
sippi, which prohibits parading without a permit. They 
allege that they, together with four other individuals, 
were arrested while walking in tandem on Capitol Street 
in Jackson, Mississippi, in an orderly fashion carrying a 
replica of the flag of the United States of America and 
displaying a sign protesting racial segregation in the city 
of Jackson, Mississippi. They allege that the arrest and 
confinement under such circumstances violate their rights 
and privileges secured to them by the First and Four­
teenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United 
States.

Appellants concede that they have not exhausted their 
State remedies, either hy appeal or by filing a petition 
for a writ of habeas corpus in the state courts of the state 
of Mississippi. They contend that they fall within the



24

exception of Section 2254, 28 U. S. C. A.,1 since they con­
tend circumstances exist “ rendering such process in­
effective to protect”  their rights. These circumstances 
are described by petitioners in the following language:

‘ ‘ Petitioner avers that all public officials of the State 
of Mississippi are committed to a policy of segrega­
tion by state law as is shown by laws enacted by 
the Legislature of the State of Mississippi in 1956 
(Sections 4065.3, 2046.5(1), 2056(7), 2087.7 and 
2087.5 of the Mississippi Code of 1942 and the 
amendments thereto); That members of the various 
state Courts, all of whom are elected, give tacit if 
not open approval and support to the segregation 
statutes in their election campaigns and that this 
segregation policy is reflected in the opinions and 
decisions of the State Courts; And that, therefore, 
any attempt to make use of the State remedies for 
relief necessarily would be futile and could only 
serve to delay, if not negate, the relief to which 
petitioner is entitled. Tour petitioner is advised 
by his counsel that similar cases resulting from the 
arrest, confinement and conviction of so called 
‘ Freedom Riders’ in June, 1961, have not yet been 
disposed of by the Supreme Court of Mississippi

1 “ § 2254. State custody; remedies in State Courts.
An application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person 

in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be 
granted unless it appears that the applicant has exhausted the 
remedies available in the courts of the State, or that there is either 
an absence of available State corrective process or the existence of 
circumstances rendering such process ineffective to protect the rights 
of the prisoner.

An applicant shall not be deemed to have exhausted the remedies 
available in the courts of the State, within the meaning of this sec­
tion, if he has the right under the law of the State to raise, by any 
available procedure, the question presented.”  28 U. S. C. A. § 2254.



25

as of this date. To require petitioner to seek redress 
in the state courts prior to this Court’s assuming 
jurisdiction of this cause is to deny petitioner the 
relief afforded by a habeas corpus proceedings, and 
to relegate him to process which is ineffective to 
protect his rights. The arrest and confinement of 
petitioner is patently unconstitutional; continuance 
of that confinement is in arrogant disregard of the 
laws of the United States.”

Eespondent attacks the application in the court below 
and here as well on the ground that the statute clearly 
applies to such cases as are here present and that this 
Court cannot assume the correctness of the statement 
referred to to the effect that the courts of the state of 
Mississippi will not carry out their duty with respect 
to granting appellants their full constitutional rights. The 
State has also moved to dismiss these appeals on the 
ground that appellants have now obtained their release 
from jail by posting bond.

We dealt with just such a case as that presented here 
by an unpublished opinion in In Re Application of Elizabeth 
P. Wykoff, 6 Race Relations Law Reporter. 793. There, 
the applicant sought from this Court permission to proceed 
on the original record from the trial court and an accelera­
tion of her appeal for an immediate hearing in an effort 
to have a reversal of the denial by the District Court for 
the Southern District of Mississippi of its denial of her 
petition for habeas corpus. She there asserted that because 
of the short term of her detention and “ the clear violation 
by respondent of the Constitution and laws of the United 
States, the requirement that she must first exhaust her 
state remedies would, in effect, deny the right of habeas 
corpus, in a situation where it was the sole effective remedy 
with which to safeguard her statutory and constitutional 
rights and liberties.”  We there stated:



26

“ It nowhere appears in the petition that the peti­
tioner has attempted to exhaust remedies available 
to her in the courts of the state of Mississippi, or 
that there is either an absence of available state 
remedies or that other circumstances exist which 
render such state remedies ineffective to protect the 
rights of the prisoner.”

After pointing to the language of the Federal Statute 
cited in footnote 1 above, we then said:

“ It not appearing from anything asserted in the 
petition in this case that petitioner sought to appeal 
her conviction, which she alleges to have been void 
and unconstitutional, or that she is financially unable 
to make bond pending such appeal, and it not appear­
ing that petitioner has no right to test her detention 
by habeas corpus in the state courts of Mississippi, 
there appears to be no sound reason for this Court 
to grant petitioner’s motion for expediting the hear­
ing in this Court.”

Following this action by this Court, an application was 
made to Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Clark, acting 
jointly as members of the United States Supreme Court, 
for the grant of the petition for habeas corpus. In denying 
said application the Justices stated:

“ This petition for habeas corpus is denied be­
cause the factual allegations fall far short of show­
ing that there are not Mississippi state processes 
available by appeal or otherwise for petitioner to 
challenge her state conviction, which processes would 
effectively protect her constitutional rights, particu­
larly since any denial of such rights by the highest 
court of a state can be remedied by appropriate 
appellate proceedings in the Supreme Court of the 
United States. See 28 U. S. Code Section 2241, 2254 
and 1257.”  6 R. R. L. R. 794.



27

While it is asserted here that the great number of 
similar convictions to that of Dr. Wykoff resulting from 
the so-called “ Freedom Rides”  of 1962, and the great 
mass of arrests in the period covering the time in which 
these two appellants were arrested, so load the Mississippi 
State Courts as to create delay in the final adjudication of 
the rights of petitioners, especially since they have been 
able to make bond and are now at liberty on bond pending 
appeal, we are unable to say that the circumstances are 
sufficiently different from those that were present at the 
time of the Wykoff proceedings to justify our finding that 
they come within the exception stated in Section 2254.

We conclude, therefore, that the appeals must be dis­
missed for a failure to present a substantial ground for 
reversing the decision of the trial court. It is, therefore, 
not necessary for us to pass on the question whether the 
release of the appellants on bond pending their appeal to 
this Court causes their application for a writ of habeas 
corpus to become moot, but see Johnson v. Hoy, Marshal, 
227 IT. S. 245, together with the recently decided case of 
Jones v. Cunningham, — U. 8. — 31 L. W. 4137, dealing 
with the right of a petitioner to pursue his application for 
habeas corpus while on parole.

The appeals are dismissed. The m andate is to  be sent 
down forthwith.



28

Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Fifth Circuit

(July 15, 1963)

A ppeal  from  th e  U nited  S tates D istrict C ourt for th e  
S o u th ern  D istrict of M ississippi

Before:
T u ttle , Chief Judge, R ives and Gewin, Circuit Judges.

O n  consideration of th e  motion  of Appellants for re­
call and stay of judgment issued as mandate in the above 
numbered and entitled cause, to enable Appellants to apply 
for and to obtain a writ of certiorari from the Supreme 
Court of the United States.

I t is ordered that the judgment issued as mandate to 
the Clerk of the United States District Court at Jackson, 
Mississippi, on July 1, 1963, be recalled and stayed to and 
including August 15, 1963, the stay to continue in force 
until the final disposition of the ease by the Supreme Court, 
provided that within said period there shall be filed with 
the Clerk of this Court the certificate of the Clerk of the 
Supreme Court that certiorari petition and record have 
been filed.

I t  is fu rth er  ordered that the Clerk shall issue the 
judgment as mandate upon the filing of a copy of an order 
of the Supreme Court denying the writ, or upon the ex­
piration of the above period unless the above mentioned 
certificate shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court within 
that time.



29

A ppeal  B onds P osted in  C o u nty  Court

Applewhite, Shirley L e e .................... $ 500.00
Bass, Robert Earl ..............................  500.00
Bass, Robert Earl ..............................  500.00
Blunt, Mark Hanna ..........................  500.00
Bracey, Doris R u th ............................  500.00
Bradley, Wayne ........................   500.00
Butler, Johnnie .................................. 500.00
Catchings, Bennie Lee ....................... 500.00
Clark, Lee Andrew ............................  500.00
Cooper, Louis ...................................... 500.00
Dennis, Mattie B...................................  500.00
Erskine, Doris Annette ..................... 500.00
Erskine, Doris Annette ...........   500.00
Frazier, Dorrice ................................  500.00
Hartfield, Jessie .................................. 500.00
Hillegas, Jan Eda ..............................  500.00
Hough, Mattie Lee ............................  500.00
Howard, Phillip ............................  500.00
Hutchinson, William P........................  500.00
Jackson, Mattie Mae ..........................  500.00
Jasper, Billie ...................................... 500.00
Johnson, Aletha Burnside .................  500.00
Johnson, DeQuincy ............................  500.00
Johnson, Ervin .................................... 500.00
Jones, Charles Andre ........................  500.00
Kelker, George E dw ard..................... 500.00
King, Ralph Edward, Jr....................  500.00
Knight, Billie Lee ............................   500.00
Lipscomb, Glen .................................. 500.00
Lonie, Conie Beatrice ........................  500.00
Massar, Barbara A n n ........................  500.00
Maxwell, Augustus Charles .............  500.00
Michael, Florine ................................ 500.00
Mitchell, Langston ................    500.00



30

Moody, Annie Mae ............................. $ 500.00
Moman, Brenda Lucille ....................   500.00
Mossley, Earl H...................................  500.00
O’Neal, Eddie Sylvester..................... 500.00
O’Neal, Helen J e a n ............................  500.00
Outley, Jessie .................................   500.00
Owens, James E dw ard....................... 500.00
Pittman, James Lee ..........................  500.00
Raymond, George, Jr...........................  500.00
Reed, Sonny (Isiah) .............   500.00
Rutledge, Stephen ..............................  500.00
Salter, John Randall ........................  500.00
Schnapper, Melvin ............................  500.00
Shlaughter, Thelma Marie ...............  500.00
Smith, John Daniel ............................  500.00
Thomas, Eddie Jean ........................  500.00
Trumpauer, Joan Harris .................  500.00
Warner, Sirlester ..............................  500.00
Watkins, Hezekiah ............................  500.00
Williams, Jimmie ............................... 500.00
Wright, Mercedes Anita ................... 500.00
Adams, Frankie Mae ........................  225.00
Adams, Frankie Mae ........................  225.00
Adkins, Milton .................................... 225.00
Allen, Eloise .......................................  225.00
Anderson, Douglas L ...........................  225.00
Armon, Alfred D.................................  225.00
Bailey, Doris M...................................  225.00
Baldwin, Lavera Dell ........................  225.00
Banyard, Pauline ..............................  225.00
Barnes, Ethel D...................................  225.00
Bass, Robert Earl ..............................  225.00
Beard, Tom H ow ard..........................  225.00
Bell, Jimmie Lee ................................  225.00
Bell, Patricia Ann ..........................   225.00
Berry, Robert Earl ............................  225.00



31

Billingsley, Robert ............................  $ 225.00
Blackwell, Velveyn ............................  225.00
Bracey, Doris ...................................... 225.00
Bradley, Morris M...............................  225.00
Bradley, Wayne .................................. 225.00
Bradley, Wayne .................................. 225.00
Branch, Clarence ................................  225.00
Brantley, Francis J.............................. 225.00
Brewer, Jeraldine ..............................  225.00
Brown, Benjamin ..............................  225.00
Brown, Benjamin ..............................  225.00
Brown, Benjamin ..............................  225.00
Brown, Chester Lee ............................  225.00
Brown, Douglas, Jr.............................. 225.00
Brown, Racy, Jr...................................  225.00
Burkett, Patricia Nell ....................... 225.00
Burns, Laura Evonne ........................  225.00
Butler, John W ..................................... 225.00
Calloway, Steve .................................. 225.00
Campbell, Margarette A ...................... 225.00
Cannon, William P erry ......................  225.00
Carter, Evelyn .................................. 225.00
Caston, Curtis B................................... 225.00
Catchings, Tommie Lee .....................  225.00
Chaffee, Lois C..................................... 225.00
Chaffee, Lois C..................................... 225.00
Chaplan, Thelma L. . ......................... 225.00
Cheatham, H en ry ................................ 225.00
Cheatham, H en ry ................................ 225.00
Christian, Hilda Lea ........................  225.00
Clark, Rubestine Meachem ...............  225.00
Cobbs, Curtis A ...................................  225.00
Coleman, Frederick ............................  225.00
Collier, James B...................................  225.00
Collins, Scott .....................................  225.00
Corban, Bennie, Jr..............................  225.00



32

Craft, Ida L en a .............
Crump, Willie D.............
Currie, Barbara F ..........
Davis, Charlie .............
Davis, Geraldine .........
Davis, Roosevelt .........
Davis, Sylvia ...............
Denkins, Jerry .............
Denkins, Jerry .............
Dickey, Frank Charles .
Dixon, Morris L.............
Dixon, Morris Lovett .. 
Dixon, Morris Lovett ..
Dudley, James W ...........
Dudley, James W ...........
Dupree, Russell William 
Durham, Elluwead . . . .  
Edwards, Emmett L. . .
Epps, Diane .................
Evans, Willie R ..............
Fleming, Ben, Jr...........
Flemmings, Eugene . ..
Florence, Dorothy .......
Forrest, Thomas B. . . .  
Foster, Clarence H. . . .
Frazier, Dorrise ...........
Fridge, Ella M...............
Funches, Josephine . . . .  
Gardner, Frank, Jr. . . .
Gibson, Jerelean...........
Gillon, Marion Leroy ..
Graham, Paul ...............
Graham, Paul ...............
Gray, Louis ...................
Gray, M. T......................
Gray, Robert ...............

.. $ 225.00
225.00
225.00
225.00
225.00
225.00
225.00
225.00
225.00
225.00
225.00
225.00
225.00
225.00
225.00
225.00
225.00
225.00
225.00
225.00
225.00
225.00
225.00
225.00
225.00
225.00
225.00
225.00
225.00
225.00
225.00
225.00
225.00
225.00
225.00
225.00



33

Green, Dave ......................................  $ 225.00
Griffin, Rozenne ..................................  225.00
Griggs, Allen ..................    225.00
Greggs, Sally ...................................... 225.00
Hales, Johnnie E .................................. 225.00
Hall, W eldon ........................................ 225.00
Hamilton, Deloris ..............................  225.00
Hamilton, Jerry W ..............................  225.00
Harris, Jessie ...................................... 225.00
Hartfield, James L...............................  225.00
Haynes, Barbara J..............................  225.00
Henry, Charles ..........................  225.00
Henry, Charles ..................................  225.00
Henry, Theodore, Jr............................ 225.00
Henry, Theodore ................................  225.00
Herring, James Earl ........................  225.00
Herring, James E.................................  225.00
Herron, Joseph S.................................  225.00
Hopkins, Zelma Rudolph ...................  225.00
Hopson, Bill J.......................................  225.00
Horn, Andrew ......................................  225.00
Horn, Henry .......................................  225.00
Horn, Henry .......................................  225.00
Hossiey, Earl H. ................................ 225.00
Hough, Mattie L. ............................... 225.00
Howard, Phillip .................................. 225.00
Howard, Phillip ..................................  225.00
Huff, Emanuel L.......... .......................  225.00
Irvin, Jimmie Lee ..............................  225.00
Irvin, Jimmie Lee ..............................  225.00
Island (Eiland) Minnie J.................... 225.00
Jackson, Albert C................................ 225.00
Jackson, Clifton .................................. 225.00
Jackson, Johnnie E.............................. 225.00
Jackson, Johnnie E.............................. 225.00



34

Jackson, Robert ..................................  $ 225.00
Jasper, Billy .......................................  225.00
Jenlons, Laura May ..........................  225.00
Johnson, Betty J................................... 225.00
Johnson, Henry ..................................  225.00
Johnson, Henry M................................ 225.00
Johnson, Henry Mitchell ...................  225.00
Johnson, John A ...................................  225.00
Johnson, William Earl ....................... 225.00
Johnson, Willie Kenneth ................... 225.00
Johnston, Aaron P...............................  225.00
Jones, Cornelius, Jr.............................  225.00
Jones, Walter H...................................  225.00
Jones Willie .......................................  225.00
Kincade, Tom, Jr.................................  225.00
Kirk, Freddie L...................................  225.00
Lapsky, Carrie D ean ..........................  225.00
Lee, A llen .............................................  225.00
Lee Tommie C....................................... 225.00
Lewis, Dorothy Jean ..........................  225.00
Lewis, John H....................................... 225.00
Lewis, John H....................................... 225.00
Lewis, Pearlena .................................. 225.00
Liddell, Lewis .................................... 225.00
Liddell, Lewis .................................... 225.00
Livingston, Marvin, Jr........................  225.00
Livingston, Marvin, Jr........................  225.00
Lonie, Connie Beatrice ......................  225.00
Lyons, Jerry ...................................... 225.00
Lyons, Jerry D ean ..............................  225.00
Lyons, Joseph C...................................  225.00
Ludden, Willie Ben ............................  225.00
Marshall, Wiley .................................. 225.00
Mason, Henry .................................... 225.00
Mitchell, Langston ..............................  225.00



35

Mitchell, James Emmit ............. . $ 225.00
Montgomery, T. C.................................  225.00
Montgomery, T. C................................. 225.00
Moody, Annie Mae ............................  225.00
Moman, Brenda L................................ 225.00
McCullar, Earnest H ow ard...............  225.00
McCune, Frank B., Jr.......................... 225.00
McDougle, Algie ................................ 225.00
McGee, Lannell .................................. 225.00
McGee, Theodore R.............................  225.00
McGee, Theodore R.............................  225.00
MeLaurin, Juliis Lee ........................  225.00
McLin, Johnny J................................... 225.00
McNair, Joyce Inez ............................  225.00
Newsome, Elma Lucille ..................... 225.00
O’Neal, Helen .....................................  225.00
Odom, Albert .....................................  225.00
Odom, Albert .....................................  225.00
Odom, Robert Lee ..............................  225.00
Oliver, Willie J...................................  225.00
Outley, Curtis ...................................  225.00
Outley, Jessie .................................... 225.00
Palmer, Will Levi ..............................  225.00
Palmer, Will Lewis, Jr........................ 225.00
Palmer, Will Lewis, Jr........................ 225.00
Peace, Marva N...................................  225.00
Pearson, Harold Joseph, Jr................  225.00
Pearson, Terry L .................................  225.00
Perkins, Harry E.................................  225.00
Perkins, James Jr...............................  225.00
Peterson, Edward Clarence...............  225.00
Phillips, West David ........................  225.00
Phillips, West David ........................  225.00
Poole, Betty Ann ........................  225.00
Price, Lynda L .....................................  225.00



36

Puckett, Louvenia ..............................  $ 225.00
Puckett, Louvenia ..............................  225.00
Band, Otis ...........................................  225.00
Reginal, Thelma Jene ......................   225.00
Riley, Barbara J.................................. 225.00
Roberson, Lorraine ..........................  225.00
Roberts, Howard ................................  225.00
Robinson, Israel, Jr............................  225.00
Robinson, Willean Thomas.................  225.00
Robinson, Jeanette ............................  225.00
Rollins, Dennis .................................... 225.00
Rucker, Geneva .................................. 225.00
Russell, James .................................... 225.00
Rutledge, Stephen ..............................  225.00
Rutledge, Stephen ..............................  225.00
Salter, Charles .................................... 225.00
Salters, John Randall, Jr....................  225.00
Samuel, Loree ...................................... 225.00
Sanders, Helen .................................... 225.00
Saulter, John R ...................................  225.00
Saulter, John R.................................... 225.00
Shaffers, Carlos, Jr.............................  225.00
Shaffer, Carlos D.................................  225.00
Sherrod, John T...................................  225.00
Simmons, Walter ................................ 225.00
Simmons, Walter ................................  225.00
Smith, Artharine ................................ 225.00
Smith, Mary L....................................... 225.00
Smith, Patricia Rose ........................  225.00
Smoot, Tommy .................................... 225.00
Spann, Alex .......................................  225.00
Spann, Isaac .......................................  225.00
Spann, Alex .......................................  225.00
Stamps, James ...............................   225.00
Stamps, Martenia ..............................  225.00
Stamps, Mike Arthur ........................  225.00



37

Stevenson, Cedilia ..............................  $ 225.00
Stevenson, Nenner Lee .....................  225.00
Summers, Timothy ............................  225.00
Terrell, Edward L....................   225.00
Terry, James Douglas ....................... 225.00
Thomsa, Eddie Jean ..........................  225.00
Thomas, Vera May ............................  225.00
Thomasm Willean Robinson .............  225.00
Thompson, Lee R.................................  225.00
Thompson, Lee Roy, Jr......................  225.00
Thompson, Leora ..............................  225.00
Thompson, Marie Mattie ................... 225.00
Thompson, Willie Earl ........................  225.00
Tibbs, Freddie Lee ............................  225.00
Tolliver, James .................................. 225.00
Townsend, Ezell .................................. 225.00
Tucker, Joe Louis ..............................  225.00
Veal, Eugene .....................................  225.00
Wansley, Eddie .................................. 225.00
Ward, Sammie Lee ............................  225.00
Ward, Sammie Lee ............................  225.00
Washington, George A ........................  225.00
Washington, Thomas ........................  225.00
Wells, Fred D., Jr...............................  225.00
White, James H...................................  225.00
Williams, Betty Jean ........................  225.00
Williams, James W. Jr..................   225.00
Williams, Jessie .................................. 225.00
Williams, John Herman ................... 225.00
Williams, Josetta ..............................  225.00
Williams, Perry Edwin ..................... 225.00
Williams, Walter ................................  225.00
Wilson, Henry, Jr................................ 225.00
Woods, Thomas J., Jr.........................  225.00
Yarn, Douglas Buford ....................... 225.00
Yarn, Roy Chester..............................  225.00

$86,900.00



38

Bond F orfeitures

Buckley, Cassey ................................. $ 100.00
Burton, Willie .................................... 100.00
Bradley, Charles ................................  300.00
Chapman, Bandall ............................... 100.00
DuPree, Russell W ...............................  100.00
Draper, Rosa ...................................... 100.00
Fry, Clara Mae .................................. 100.00
Gaston, Robert Lee ..........................  100.00
George, Pearl L ........ .........    100.00
Gill, Emma D. . ..................................  100.00
Herron, Tucker .................................. 200.00
Jones, James W ilson ..........................  200.00
King, Ralph Edwin ............................  100.00
Ladner, Doris ...................................... 100.00
Liddell, Lewis ...................................... 100.00
Michael, Bishop .................................. 300.00
Moore, Jessie ...................................... 100.00
Nemenyi, Peter .................................... 100.00
Oliver, Willie .....................................  100.00
Salter, John R....................................... 100.00
Smith, Inez .........................................  300.00
Withers, Earnest ................................  100.00
Williams, Lincur ................................  150.00
Young, Kenneth .................................. 140.00

$ 3,400.00

B onds P osted in  C it y  Court

Brown, James .................................... $ 100.00
Evers, Medgar .................................... 1,000.00
Richards, Lucian ................................ 100.00
Wilcher, Helen .................................... 1,000.00
Wilkins, Roy ...................................... 1,000.00

$ 3,200.00



39

R ecapitulation

Appeal Bonds .....................................  $86,900.00
Bonds Posted in C ity ........................  3,200.00
Forfeitures .........................................  3,400.00

$93,500.00
B ond R eceipts

5-27-63—Mrs. Essie Randall ...........  $ 700.00
5-27-63—John W. D ixon ................... 4,000.00
5-30-63—John W. D ixon ................... 1,000.00
5- 31-63—John W. D ixon ................ 14,000.00
6- 3-63—John W. D ixon ................... 10,000.00
6- 4-63—John W. D ixon ................... 10,000.00
6- 4-63—N. A. A. C. P.......................  25,000.00
6-13-63—N. A. A. C. P.......................  5,000.00
6-13-63—1ST. A. A. C. P.......................  5,000.00
6-13-63—N. A. A. C. P.......................  1,000.00
6-13-63—N. A. A. C. P.......................  1,000.00
6-13-63—N. A. A. C. P.......................  1,000.00
6-13-63—N. A. A. C. P.....................    1,000.00
6-13-63—N. A. A. C. P. .....................  1,000.00
6-14-63—N. A. A. C. P.......................  14,000.00
6-22-63—N. A. A. C. P.......................  10,000.00

Total ...................................  $103,700.00

R ecapitulation

Total Receipts ...................................  $103,700.00



40

D isbursements

County Appeal Bonds .. $86,900.00
City Bonds ...................  3,200.00
Forfeitures ...................  3,400.00
Expenses ....................... 2,396.17

$95,896.17
Balance on Hand as of July 15, 1963

$ 95,896.17 
$ 7,803.83



Supreme Printing Co., In c , 54 Lafayette Street, N. Y . 13, BEekman 3-2320