Memphis Airport and School Desegregation Rulings Hailed

Press Release
March 26, 1962

Memphis Airport and School Desegregation Rulings Hailed preview

Cite this item

  • Press Releases, Loose Pages. Memphis Airport and School Desegregation Rulings Hailed, 1962. 6e5f3dee-bc92-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/184eaaeb-2971-43f2-a7ac-56b1022a0152/memphis-airport-and-school-desegregation-rulings-hailed. Accessed May 12, 2025.

    Copied!

    PRESS RELEASE 

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 
1O COLUMBUS CIRCLE «+ NEW YORK19,N.Y. © JUdson 6-8397 

DR. ALLAN KNIGHT CHALMERS JACK GREENBERG CONSTANCE BAKER MOTLEY 
President Director-Counsal Associate Counsel 

SB 25 

MEMPHIS AIRPORT AND SCHOOL 
DESEGREGATION RULINGS HAILED March 26, 1962 

NEW YORK -- Mrs. Constance Baker Motley, NAACP Legal Defense and 

Educational Fund Associate Counsel, hailed today's U. S. Supreme 

Court ruling outlawing racial segregation in the Memphis airport 

terminal. 

Mrs. Motley, who argued the case before the high Court on 

February 27, said today's decision "established a precedent for 

ending segregation in other airports around the country.” She 

noted that similar airport terminal suits are pending in New 

Orleans, La., Jackson, Miss., Mobile, Ala. and Tampa, Fla. 

The Supreme Court's ruling reversed the action of a three- 

judge federal court in Memphis which refused to rule on the merits 

of the case on January 23, 1961. 

The lower court had held that Mr. Jesse Turner, the plaintiff, 

who is a noted Memphis Negro businessman, should bring an action 

in Tennessee courts for construction of the state-wide regula- 

tion permitting segregation which was promulgated by the Tennessee 

Department of Hotel and Restaurant Inspection. 

In today's ruling, the Supreme Court held that it had 

settled beyond question that segregated transportation facilities 

are unconstitutional, as it did last month in the Jackson, Miss. 

Freedom Rider case. 

The Dobbs Houses restaurant at the Memphis Airport refused 

service to Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Carl Rowan in January 

causing a national incident. 

Mrs. Motley also hailed the March 23 ruling of the Court of 

Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in the Memphis school desegregation 

case. 

The Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled that the Tennessee 

Pupil Assignment Law of 1957 does not follow the Supreme Court's 



<9 

desegregation decision of 1954, and ordered the Memphis school 

board to "adopt some realistic plan for the organization of their 

schools on a non-racial basis." 

Mrs. Motley called this decision "a step forward in the 

school segregation controversy." 

"Many school boards have maintained that their pupil assign- 

ment plans fall under the Brown decision of 1954, since any Negro 

aggrieved by his assignment could apply for transfer to a white 

school. The Court of Appeals ruled that under Brown you can't 

have ‘white’ schools and 'Negro' schools staffed by all-white 

teachers and all-Negro teachers. Moreover, Negro children cannot 

be required to apply for a right which they already have." 

Memphis began school desegregation last Fall when thirteen 

Negro children were admitted to all-white schools, The Court of 

Appeals noted, however, that twenty-eight Negro children had 

applied for transfers, and the entire group was subjected to tests 

which white children did not have to take. 

NAACP Legal Defense Fund attorneys besides Mrs. Motley were 

Aw W. Willtse> Jno, Bob. Hookss, CG, O.ahorton, 8. F.-Jones, -H.-1. 

Lockard and R, B. Sugarmon, Jr., all of Memphis, Tenn. 

=e O===.

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.


Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Return to top