Gates v. Collier Brief for the United States

    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 73-1790  
No. 73-2033

NAZARETH GATES, e t  a l . ,
P l a i n t i f f s - A p p e l l e e s ,

and

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
P l a i n t i f f - I n t e r v e n o r - A p p e l l e e ,

v .

JOHN COLLIER, e t  a l . ,
D e f e n d a n t s - A p p e l la n t s .

N. H. NEWMAN, e t  a l . ,
P l a i n t i f f s - A p p e l l e e s ,

v .

STATE OF ALABAMA, e t  a l . ,
D e fen d a n ts -A p p e l la n ts

On Appeal from the United  S t a t e s  D i s t r i c t  Courts fo r  
the Northern D i s t r i c t  o f  M i s s i s s i p p i  and the Middle

D i s t r i c t  o f  Alabama

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES

IRA DE ME NT 
H. M. RAY
United  S t a t e s  A t to r n e y s

J .  STANLEY POTT INGE R
A s s i s t a n t  A ttorney  General

BRIAN K. LANDSBERG 
WALTER W. BARNETT 
CYNTHIA L. ATTWOOD

A tto rn ey s
Department o f  J u s t i c e  
Washington, D. C. 20530



IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 73-1790  
No. 73-2033

NAZARETH GATES, e t  a l . ,
P l a i n t i f f s - A p p e l l e e s ,

and

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
P l a i n t i f f - I n t e r v e n o r - A p p e l l e e ,

v .

JOHN COLLIER, e t  a l . ,
D e f e n d a n t s - A p p e l la n t s .

N. H. NEWMAN, e t  a l . ,
P l a i n t i f f s - A p p e l l e e s

STATE OF ALABAMA, e t  a l . ,
D e f e n d a n t s - A p p e l la n t s .

On Appeal from the United  S t a t e s  D i s t r i c t  Courts fo r  
the  Northern D i s t r i c t  o f  M i s s i s s i p p i  and the Middle

D i s t r i c t  o f  Alabama

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES

IRA DE MENT J .  STANLEY POTTINGER
H. M. RAY A s s i s t a n t  A ttorney  General
United  S t a t e s  A t to rn ey s

BRIAN K. LANDSBERG 
WALTER W. BARNETT 
CYNTHIA L. ATWOOD 

A tto rn ey s
Department o f  J u s t i c e  
Washington, D. C. 20530



IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 73-1790  
No. 73-2033

NAZARETH GATES, e t  a l . ,
P l a i n t i f f s - A p p e l l e e s ,

and

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
P l a i n t i f f - I n t e r v e n o r - A p p e l l e e ,

v .

JOHN COLLIER, e t  a l . ,
D e f e n d a n t s - A p p e l la n t s .

N. H. NEWMAN, e t  a l . ,
P l a i n t i f f s - A p p e l l e e s ,

v .

STATE OF ALABAMA, e t  a l . ,
D e f e n d a n t s - A p p e l la n t s .

On Appeal from the United  S t a t e s  D i s t r i c t  Courts fo r  
the Northern D i s t r i c t  o f  M i s s i s s i p p i  and the Middle

D i s t r i c t  o f  Alabama

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES

IRA DE MENT J .  STANLEY POTTINGER
H. M. RAY A s s i s t a n t  A ttorney  General
United  S t a t e s  A t to r n e y s

BRIAN K. LANDSBERG 
WALTER W. BARNETT 
CYNTHIA L. ATTWOOD 

A tto rn ey s
Department o f  J u s t i c e  
Washington, D. C. 20530



Page

QUESTION PRESENTED .................................................................  2

STATEMENT ....................................................................................... 2

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................... 6

ARGUMENT .........................................................................................  8

THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT BAR THE 
ALLOWANCE OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AGAINST A 
STATE OR STATE OFFICIAL IN SUITS 
SEEKING EQUITABLE RELIEF FROM 
CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS ..............   8

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONCLUSION 21



TABLE OF CASES

Page

B ra d le y  v .  School  Board o f  th e  C i ty  o f  
Richmond, U.S. ,
42 U.S.L.W. 4703 (May 15, 1974) .................  17

B r a n d e n b u r g e r  v .  Thompson,
494 F. 2d 885 ( 9 t h  C i r .  1974) ........................  20

Chiso lm  v .  G e o r g i a ,  2 D a l i .  419 (1793) .................  8

C u r t i s  v .  L o e t h e r ,  415 U .S .  189 (1974)  .................  15

Duhne v .  New J e r s e y ,  251 U.S.  311 (1920) ............  12

Edelman v .  J o r d a n ,  U.S.  , p a ss im
42 U.S.L.W. 4419 (1974)  ....................................

Employees v .  D epar tm ent  o f  P u b l i c  H e a l th  &
W e l f a r e ,  411 U.S.  279 (1973) ........................  9 ,  11

Ex p a r t e  Young, 209 U.S.  123 (1908) ........................ 6 - 7 , 1 2 - 1 3 , 1 6 - 1 7

F a i rm o n t  Creamery Co. v .  M in n e s o ta ,
275 U.S.  70 (1927)  ................................................  7, 19

Ford Motor Co. v Depar tm ent  o f  T r e a s u r y ,
323 U.S.  459 (1945) ..............................................  10

G a tes  v .  C o l l i e r ,  349 F. Suop. 881
(N.D. M iss .  1972) ................................................... 2-4

G r e a t  N o r th e r n  L i f e  I n s u r a n c e  Co. v .  Read,
322 U .S .  47 (1945) ................................................  12

Hans v .  L o u i s i a n a ,  134 U.S.  1 (1890) ...................... 12

i i



Page

In  Re A y e r s ,  123 U.S.  443 (1887) ...............................  11

J o r d a n  v .  F u s a r i ,  496 F .2 d  646 (2nd C i r .  1974) 20

Jo rd o n  v .  G i l l i g a n ,  ___  F .2 d  ___  ( 6 t h  C i r .  1974) 20

Newman v .  Alabama, 349 F. Supp. 278 (M.D. A la .
1972) .....................................................................................  4 -5

LaRaza Unida v V o lo e ,  57 F .R .D .  94 (N.D. C a l i f .
1 9 7 2 ) ,  a f f ' d ,  488 F 2d 559 ( 9 t h  C i r .  1974) 20

Pa rd en  v .  T e rm in a l  R. C o . ,  377 U.S.  184 (1964) 12

Sims v .  Amos, 340 F. Supp. 691 (M.D. A la .  1 9 7 2 ) ,
a f f ' d ,  409 U .S .  942 (1972) ( p e r  cu r ium )  20

Skehan v .  Board o f  T r u s t e e s ,  ___  F .2 d  ___
(3 rd  C i r .  1974) .......................................................  20

S t a t e  o f  Utah v .  U n i t e d  S t a t e s ,  304 F .2 d  23
( 1 0 th  C i r .  1962) .........................................................  18-19

i i i



CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS, STATUTES AND REGULATIONS

Page
U n i t e d  S t a t e s  C o n s t i t u t i o n ,  A r t .  I l l ,  Sec.  2 . .  9

U n i t e d  S t a t e s  C o n s t i t u t i o n ,  Amend. 11 ...................  pa ss im

T i t l e  V II  o f  th e  C i v i l  R ig h t s  Act  o f  1964
(42 U .S .C .  2000e e t  s e q . )  a s  amended 
by th e  E qua l  Employment O p p o r t u n i ty  
Act  o f  1972
( P .L .  9 2 -2 6 1 ,  86 S t a t .  103) ........................... 15

28 U .S .C .  2412 ........................................................................... 9



IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 73-1790  
No. 73-2033

NAZARETH GATES, e t  a l . ,
P l a i n t i f f s -  A p p e l l e e s ,

and

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
P l a i n t i f f - I n t e r v e n o r - A p p e l l e e ,

v .

JOHN COLLIER, e t  a l . ,
D e f e n d a n t s - A p p e l la n t s .

N. H. NEWMAN, e t  a l . ,
P l a i n t i f f s - A p p e l l e e s ,

v .

STATE OF ALABAMA, e t  a l . ,
D e f e n d a n t s - A p p e l la n t s .

On Appeal from the United  S t a t e s  D i s t r i c t  Courts fo r  
the  Northern D i s t r i c t  o f  M i s s i s s i p p i  and the Middle

D i s t r i c t  o f  Alabama

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES

The United  S t a t e s  submits t h i s  b r i e f  as a p p e l l e e  

in  Gates v .  C o l l i e r , No. 7 3 -1790 ,  and as amicus c u r ia e

i n  Newman v .  Alabama, No. 73-2033.



QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether the E lev e n th  Amendment bars  the a l low ance  

o f  a t t o r n e y s '  f e e s  a g a i n s t  a s t a t e  or s t a t e  o f f i c i a l  

in  s u i t s  s e e k in g  e q u i t a b l e  r e l i e f  from c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  

v i o l a t i o n s .

STATEMENT

1. Gates v .  C o l l i e r

In G a t e s , inmates o f  the M i s s i s s i p p i  S t a t e  P e n i ­

t e n t i a r y  (Parchman) sued the  S u per in ten dent  o f  the  

P e n i t e n t i a r y ,  the members o f  the  M i s s i s s i p p i  P e n i t e n ­

t i a r y  Board, and the  Governor o f  the S t a t e ,  a l l e g i n g  

t h a t  inmates were b e in g  d epr ived  o f  the r i g h t s ,  p r i v i l e g e s  

and immunit ies  secured  to  them by the  F i r s t ,  E ig h th ,  

T h ir t e e n t h  and Fourteenth  Amendments. The United  S t a t e s  

was perm it ted  to  i n t e r v e n e  as  p l a i n t i f f .  Gates v .  C o l l i e r , 

349 F. Supp. 8 81 ,  885 (N.D. M iss .  19 7 2 ) .

The d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  found t h a t :  the M i s s i s s i p p i

S t a t e  P e n i t e n t i a r y  (Parchman) was s e g r e g a t e d  by race;  

b la c k  inmates were s u b j e c t  to  unequal trea tm en t;

2



housing  was u n f i t  f o r  human h a b i t a t i o n ;  th e r e  was 

inadequate  m ed ica l  a id  a v a i l a b l e ;  inmates were su b je c te d  

t o  p h y s i c a l  abuse;  p r i s o n e r s  were denied  l i b e r t y  w ith o u t  

due p r o c e s s ;  and m a i l  was u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y  cen so red .

349 F. Supp. a t  886 -8 9 3 .  The co u r t  h e ld  th a t  the inmates  

were b e in g  depr ived  o f  r i g h t s  guaranteed  by the  F ourteenth  

Amendment to  the  C o n s t i t u t i o n  e i t h e r  d i r e c t l y  or as  th a t  

Amendment in c o r p o r a t e s  the  p r o t e c t i o n s  o f  the  F i r s t ,

S i x t h  and E ighth  Amendments. 349 F. Supp. a t  8 9 4 -896 .

The c o u r t  t h e r e f o r e  e n jo in e d  c o n t in u ed  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  

v i o l a t i o n s  and ordered d e fen d a n ts  to  r e c t i f y  u n c o n s t i ­

t u t i o n a l  c o n d i t i o n s  and p r a c t i c e s .  349 F. Supp. a t  898,jy
905.

T h e r e a f t e r ,  the  d i s t r i c t  c o u r t ,  in  an unreported  

o r d e r ,  awarded p l a i n t i f f s ' c o u n s e l  $41 ,7 5 0  f o r  s e r v i c e s

1 /  An appea l  by the  s t a t e  d e fen dan ts  from th a t  d e c i s i o n  
has been subm itted  to  a pane l  o f  t h i s  Court (No. 73-1023 ,  
argued October 9 ,  1 9 7 3 ) .

3



and $ 1 0 ,9 8 6 .0 5  f o r  c o s t s  and expenses  i n c i d e n t  to  the  

maintenance o f  the a c t i o n .

On a p p e a l ,  a panel  o f  t h i s  co u r t  a f f irm ed  the  

award o f  a t t o r n e y s '  f e e s .  Gates v .  C o l l i e r , 489 F.2d  

298 (1 9 7 3 ) .  By order  o f  September 9 ,  1974, t h i s  Court 

determined to  rehear  the c a se  en b a n c .

2.  Newman v .  Alabama

In Newman, p r i s o n e r s  in  the Alabama S t a t e  Penal System  

f i l e d  s u i t ,  a l l e g i n g  th a t  they were denied  proper and adequate  

m ed ica l  treatm ent  in  v i o l a t i o n  o f  t h e i r  r i g h t s  guaranteed  

under the E ighth  and F ourteenth  Amendments. Defendants  

in  the a c t i o n  were "the A ttorney  General  o f  the  S t a t e  o f  

Alabama, the Commissioner, the Chairman, and o th e r  members 

o f  the  Alabama Board o f  C o r r e c t i o n s ,  and the warden, the  

h s o p i t a l  a d m in i s t r a t o r  and the h o s p i t a l  s t a f f  o f  the Medical  

and D ia g n o s t i c  C e n te r ,  Mt. M eigs ,  Alabama, the g e n e r a l  

h o s p i t a l  f o r  the Alabama p r i s o n  sys tem ."  Newman v .  Alabama, 

349 F Supp. 278 (M.D. A la .  1 9 7 2 ) .

4



The d i s t r i c t  co u r t  he ld  th a t  d e fen dan ts  had 

v i o l a t e d  the  E ighth  and Fourteenth  Amendments in  

f a i l i n g  to  prov ide  proper m ed ica l  care  and e n jo in e d  

the de fen dan ts  from fu tu re  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  v i o l a t i o n s .  

Newman v .  Alabama, 349 F. Supp. 278 ,  286-288 (M.D.

A la .  19 7 2 ) .  The c o u r t  a l s o  ordered d e fen d a n ts  to  pay 

$ 1 4 ,4 8 3 .4 2  in  f e e s  and expenses  to  p l a i n t i f f s '  a t t o r n e y ,  

and taxed c o s t s  a g a i n s t  the d e fe n d a n ts .  349 F. Supp. 

a t  288.

Defendants  appea led  both  the h o ld in g  o f  the  

d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  on c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  v i o l a t i o n s  and the  

award o f  a t t o r n e y s '  f e e s  and the c a se  was argued b e fo re  

a panel  o f  t h i s  Court on A p r i l  2 2 ,  1974. (The United  

S t a t e s ,  which p a r t i c i p a t e d  as  amicus c u r ia e  in  the  

d i s t r i c t  c o u r t ,  a l s o  so p a r t i c i p a t e d  when the case  

was b e fo r e  the  p a n e l . )  By l e t t e r

5



o f  August 6 ,  1974,  the Clerk informed c o u n s e l  tha t  t h i s  

Court would c o n s i d e r  en banc the q u e s t io n  o f  the a l low ance
JJ -------------

o f  a t t o r n e y s '  f e e s .

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The E lev e n th  Amendment, as the d e c i s i o n s  o f  the  

Supreme Court in  Ex Parte  Young. 209 U .S .  123 (1 9 0 8 ) ,

and Edelman v .  Jord a n . ___  U.S. ___ , 42 U.S.L.W. 4419

(March 25 ,  1974) i n d i c a t e ,  m erely  l i m i t s  a f e d e r a l  

c o u r t ' 8 power to  d e c id e  c e r t a i n  k in ds  o f  s u i t s  brought  

a g a i n s t  s t a t e s  and s t a t e  o f f i c i a l s .  S u i t s  such as  

those  p r e s e n t l y  b e fo r e  t h i s  c o u r t ,  which were brought  

to  e n j o i n  u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  conduct  on the part  o f  s t a t e  

o f f i c i a l s ,  are  not  p r o h i b i t e d .  Edelman v .  Jordan , su p r a ,

42 U.S.L.W. a t  4423.

The Court i n  Edelman h e ld  th a t  a t  l e a s t  c e r t a i n  

s u i t s  which seek  an "award o f  an accrued monetary l i a b i l i t y "

2 /  By order  o f  September 9 ,  1974,  t h i s  Court determined  
to  hear a l l  a s p e c t s  o f  the  appea l  en b a n c .

6



are  p r o h ib i t e d  by the  E lev e n th  Amendment. The award o f  

a t t o r n e y s '  f e e s  in  the c a s e s ,  now b e f o r e  t h i s  Court,  

does not  f a l l  w i t h i n  e i t h e r  the l e t t e r  or the s p i r i t  

o f  the  Edelman d e c i s i o n  as  an award o f  a t t o r n e y s '  f e e s  i s  

n o t  a "cause o f  a c t i o n , "  but a normal and i n c i d e n t a l  

consequence o f  l i t i g a t i o n .  In ch o o s in g  to  defend an 

action which i s  p roper ly  w i t h i n  the f e d e r a l  forum,  

d efen dan ts  must assume r e s p o n s ib i l i t y  f o r  t h e s e  t a n g e n t i a l  

e x p e n se s .  Cf. Fairmont CreameiyCo. v .  M in n eso ta , 275 

U .S .  70 (1 9 2 7 ) .

The d e c i s i o n  in  Edelman e x p r e s s l y  r e c o g n ize d  th a t  

adherence to  the  d o c t r in e  in  Ex parte  Young, su p r a , would 

i n e v i t a b l y  have "an a n c i l l a r y  e f f e c t  on the s t a t e  treasu ry"  

42 U.S.L.W. a t  4424 .  We submit th a t  the awards here a t  

i s s u e ,  which o f  c o u rse  have such an e f f e c t , a r e  c o n s i s t e n t  

w it h  the purposes  i m p l i c i t  in  the E lev e n th  Amendment and 

the  d e c i s i o n s  o f  the Supreme Court e x p l i c i t l y  i n t e r p r e t i n g  

i t .

7



ARGUMENT

THE ELEVENTH AMENDMENT DOES NOT BAR 
THE ALLOWANCE OF ATTORNEYS' FEES 
AGAINST A STATE OR STATE OFFICIAL 
IN SUITS SEEKING EQUITABLE RELIEF 
FROM CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS

A. The E lev e n th  Amendment merely  l i m i t s  the f e d e r a l

c o u r t s '  power to  a d j u d i c a t e  under A r t i c l e  I I I  o f

the C o n s t i t u t i o n .

A p p e l l a n t s '  argument, th a t  the E lev en th  Amendment 

p rec lud es  the a l low ance  o f  a t t o r n e y s '  f e e s  in  s u i t s  

brought a g a i n s t  s t a t e  o f f i c i a l s ,  i s  based on a m isap­

p rehens ion  o f  the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l  nature  o f  the Amendment. 

The E lev en th  Amendment p r o v i d e s :

The j u d i c i a l  power o f  the United  S t a t e s  
s h a l l  no t  be con stru ed  to  extend to  any 
s u i t  in  law or  e q u i t y ,  commenced or  
pro secu ted  a g a i n s t  one o f  the United  
S t a t e s  by C i t i z e n s  o f  anoth er  S t a t e ,  
or by C i t i z e n s  or S u b je c t s  o f  any 
F ore ign  S t a t e .

The Araendmen t  was proposed by the Congress and r a t i f i e d  

by the s t a t e s  in  response  to  the  Supreme C ou rt 's  d e c i s i o n  

in  Chisolm v . G e o r g ia , 2 D a l i .  419 (1 7 9 3 ) ,  in  which the  

Court h e ld  th a t  f e d e r a l  j u r i s d i c t i o n  under A r t i c l e  I I I  

o f  the C o n s t i t u t i o n  encompassed a s u i t  brought a g a i n s t  a 

n o n -c o n se n t in g  s t a t e  by c i t i z e n s  o f  anoth er  s t a t e .  Thus

8



the E lev en th  Amendment was intended to  c l a r i f y  the i n t e n t  

o f  the Framers o f  the C o n s t i t u t i o n  and to  r e s t r i c t  the  

language o f  A r t i c l e  I I I ,  S e c t i o n  2 which s t a t e s  that  

the f e d e r a l  j u d i c i a l  power s h a l l  extend to  " c o n t r o v e r s i e s  . . 

between a s t a t e  and c i t i z e n s  o f  anoth er  s t a t e . "

The E lev en th  Amendment l i m i t a t i o n  on s u i t s  a g a i n s t

s t a t e s  i s  d i f f e r e n t  than the l i m i t a t i o n s  a r i s i n g  under
_ 3 /

the common law d o c t r in e  o f  s o v e r e ig n  immunity. While

s o v e r e ig n  immunity, where i t  a p p l i e s ,  p r o t e c t s  s t a t e s

from s u i t  in  any forum a b sen t  c o n s e n t ,  the E leventh

Amendment merely  p la c e s  j u r i s d i c t i o n a l  l i m i t a t i o n s  on

f e d e r a l  c o u r t s .  J u s t i c e  M a rsh a l l ,  in  h i s  concurr ing

o p in io n  in  Employees v .  Department o f  P ub l ic  Health  and W e l f a r e .

411 U .S .  279 ,  294 ( 1 9 7 3 ) ,  a r t i c u l a t e d  t h i s  d i s t i n c t i o n :

The ro o t  o f  the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  
impediment to  the e x e r i c s e  o f  the  
f e d e r a l  j u d i c i a l  power in  a ca se  
such as  t h i s  i s  not  the  E leventh  
Amendment but  A rt .  I l l  o f  our  
C o n s t i t u t i o n .  . . .

3 /  The d o c t r i n e  o f  s o v e r e ig n  immunity, f o r  example,  
a p p l i e s  in  some c o n t e x t s  to  the s t a t e s  and to  the 
f e d e r a l  government. The E lev e n th  Amendment by i t s  
language only  l i m i t s  the f e d e r a l  j u d i c i a l  power in  
s u i t s  brought a g a i n s t  s t a t e s .  The l i a b i l i t y  o f  the  
United S t a t e s  f o r  a t t o r n e y s '  f e e s  i s  in  no way a f f e c t e d  
by the E le v e n th  Amendment, but i s  e x p r e s s l y  governed  
by s t a t u t e .  See e . g . ,  28 U.S .C .  2412.

9



*  *  *

This  l i m i t a t i o n  upon the j u d i c i a l  
power i s ,  w i th o u t  q u e s t i o n ,  a r e f l e c ­
t i o n  o f  concern f o r  the s o v e r e ig n t y  
o f  the S t a t e s ,  but  in  a p a r t i c u l a r l y  
l i m i t e d  c o n t e x t .  The i s s u e  i s  not  
the  g e n e r a l  immunity o f  the S t a t e s  
from p r i v a t e  s u i t  - a q u e s t io n  o f  
the  common law - but  merely  the s u s ­
c e p t i b i l i t y  o f  the S t a t e s  to  s u i t  
b e f o r e  f e d e r a l  t r i b u n a l s .

In Edelman v .  Jordan , ___  U.S. ___ , 42 U.S.L.W.

4419 (1 9 7 4 ) ,  the  Court underscored  the j u r i s d i c t i o n a l  

nature  o f  the E lev e n th  Amendment. The Court he ld  

t h a t  a l th o u g h  the  s t a t e  had not  r a i s e d  the  E leventh  

Amendment d e fe n s e  in  the d i s t r i c t  c o u r t ,  the s t a t e  

was not  barred from r a i s i n g  i t  su b seq u e n t ly  (42 U.S.L.W.  

a t  4 4 2 7 ) :

. . . [ I ] t  has been w e l l - s e t t l e d  s i n c e  
the  d e c i s i o n  in  Ford Motor Co. v .  
Department o f  T r e a s u r y . [323 U .S .  459  
(1 9 4 5 ) ]  th a t  the  E lev e n th  Amendment 
d e fe n s e  s u f f i c i e n t l y  partakes  o f  the  
natu re  o f  a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l  bar so  th a t  
i t  need n o t  be r a i s e d  in  the t r i a l  c o u r t .

10



One l i m i t e d  purpose o f  the E lev en th  Amendment i s  

to  minimize  the  t e n s i o n s  o f  f e d e r a l i s m  " inh eren t  in  making 

one so v e r e ig n  appear a g a i n s t  i t s  w i l l  in  the c o u r ts  o f  

the  o t h e r . "  Employees v .  Department o f  P u b l ic  H ealth  and Wel­

f a r e ,  su p r a , 411 U .S .  a t  294 (M arsh a l l ,  J .  c o n c u r r in g ) .

The v e ry  o b j e c t  and purpose o f  the  
11th Amendment were to  prevent  the  
i n d i g n i t y  o f  s u b j e c t i n g  a S t a t e  to  
the  c o e r c i v e  p r o c e ss  o f  j u d i c i a l  
t r i b u n a l s  a t  the i n s t a n c e  o f  p r i v a t e  
p a r t i e s .  I t  was thought to  be n e i t h e r  
becoming nor c o n v e n ie n t  th a t  the  s e v e r a l  
s t a t e s  o f  the  Union, i n v e s t e d  w i th  th a t  
l a r g e  residuum o f  s o v e r e i g n t y  which had 
not  been d e l e g a t e d  to  the  United  S t a t e s ,  
should  be summoned as  de fen d a n ts  to  
answer the  com p la in ts  o f  p r i v a t e  p e r ­
so n s ,  whether  c i t i z e n s  o f  o t h e r  s t a t e s  
or a l i e n s ,  or th a t  th e  course  o f  t h e i r  
p u b l i c  p o l i c y  and the  a d m i n i s t r a t i o n  o f  
t h e i r  p u b l i c  a f f a i r s  should  be s u b j e c t  
to  and c o n t r o l l e d  by the  mandates o f  
j u d i c i a l  t r i b u n a l s  w i th o u t  t h e i r  c o n ­
s e n t  and i n  fa v o r  o f  i n d i v i d u a l  
i n t e r e s t s .

In re A y e r s , 123 U .S .  4 4 3 ,  505 (1 8 8 7 ) .  The Amendment 

t h e r e f o r e  d e n ie s  f e d e r a l  c o u r t s  the j u r i s d i c t i o n  to

11



d e c id e  c e r t a i n  r i g h t s  and l i a b i l i t i e s  when a s s e r t e d
_4 /

a g a i n s t  a s t a t e .

The j u r i s d i c t i o n a l  bar o f  the E lev e n th  Amendment 

i s  no t  a b s o l u t e ,  however. A long  l i n e  o f  c a s e s ,  b e g in -  

n i g  w i th  Ex parte  Young, 209 U .S .  123 ( 1 9 0 8 ) ,  has 

e s t a b l i s h e d  t h a t  s u i t s  f o r  i n j u n c t i v e  r e l i e f  a g a i n s t  

s t a t e  o f f i c i a l s  may be heard in  f e d e r a l  c o u r t s ,  c o n s i s t e n t  

w ith  the C o n s t i t u t i o n ,  where the  com pla int  i s  th a t  the  

o f f i c i a l ,  a c t i n g  in  h i s  c a p a c i t y  a s  agent  o f  the s t a t e ,
_ 5 /

has engaged in  u n a u th o r ise d  or u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  conduct .

4 /  A lthough the Amendment does n o t ,  by i t s  terms 
p rec lud e  a s t a t e  b e in g  sued by i t s  own c i t i z e n s  in  
f e d e r a l  c o u r t ,  the Supreme Court ,  b e g in n in g  w ith  
Hans v .  L o u i s i a n a , 134 U.S.  1 ( 1 8 9 0 ) ,  has so  construed  
i t .  S ee ,  e . g . ,  Duhne v .  New J e r s e y , 251 U .S .  311 (1920) ;  
Great Northern L i f e  Insurance  Co. v .  Read, 322 U .S .  47 
(1 9 4 5 ) ;  Parden v .  Terminal R. Co. , 377 U .S .  184 (1 9 6 4 ) .
The C o u rt 's  d e c i s i o n  in  Edelman speaks on ly  to  the  
E lev e n th  Amendment. S ee ,  e . g . ,  42 U.S.L.W. a t  4422 (1 9 7 4 ) .

5 /  The a p p e l l a n t s  in  Gates and Newman do not  su g g es t  
th a t  the c o m p la in ts  i n  th o se  c a s e s ,  w i th  t h e i r  prayers  
f o r  r e l i e f ,  s t a t e d  c la im s  as to  which the E lev e n th  
Amendment was in  any way a bar  in  l i g h t  o f  the d o c t r in e  
o f  Ex parte  Young, 209 U .S .  123 (1 9 0 8 ) .

12



In Ex pa r te  Young, su p r a . and subsequent c a s e s ,  the

Supreme Court harmonized t h i s  d o c t r in e  and the E leventh

Amendment by h o ld in g  th a t  such a s u i t  i s  a g a i n s t  the

i n d i v i d u a l  and not  a g a i n s t  the S t a t e ,  in  s p i t e  o f  the

f a c t  t h a t  i n j u n c t i v e  r e l i e f  ordered in  such c a s e s  may

r e q u ir e  the  e x p e n d i tu r e  o f  s t a t e  funds and o th e r  s t a t e
_ 6 /

a c t i o n .

Edelman v .  Jordan , su p r a , marked a c l a r i f i c a t i o n  

o f  the  d o c t r i n e  f i r s t  e n u n c ia te d  in  Ex parte  Young.

In Edelman the Supreme Court h e ld  th a t  w h i l e  s u i t s  

f o r  p r o s p e c t i v e  i n j u n c t i v e  r e l i e f  a g a i n s t  a s t a t e  

o f f i c i a l  are  not  barred by the E lev e n th  Amendment, a t  

feas t  c e r t a i n  a c t i o n s  which seek  the "award o f  an 

accrued monetary l i a b i l i t y "  are  p r o h i b i t e d .

6 /  The Court in  Edelman e x p l i c i t l y  noted  th a t  the k in ds  
o f  r e l i e f  a u t h o r iz e d  by Ex pa r te  Young would r e s u l t  in  
the  e x p e n d i tu r e  o f  s t a t e  funds (42 U.S.L.W. a t  4 4 2 4 ) :

S t a t e  o f f i c i a l s ,  in  order  to  shape t h e i r  
o f f i c i a l  conduct to  the  mandate o f  the  
C o u rt ' s  d e c r e e s ,  would more l i k e l y  have 
t o  spend money from the S t a t e  Treasury  
than i f  they had been l e f t  f r e e  to  pur­
sue t h e i r  pr e v io u s  c o u rse  o f  conduct .

13



7 /
Edelman v .  Jordan , su p r a . 42 U.S.L.W. a t  4419 .

The Court found th a t  th e r e  were e s s e n t i a l l y  two 

c a u se s  o f  a c t i o n  in  Edelman; one f o r  i n j u n c t i v e  r e l i e f ,  

and one f o r  monetary damages. On the  f a c t s  b e f o r e  i t ,  

the  Court he ld  t h a t  f e d e r a l  c o u r t s  do not  have j u r i s d i c t i o n

_ 7 /  I t  i s  n o t a b le  th a t  w h i l e  the  Court in  Edelman 
p r o h i b i t s  some k in d s  o f  monetary awards a g a i n s t  s t a t e s ,  
nowhere does i t  s t a t e  t h a t  no form o f  e x p e n d i tu r e s  
may be ordered .  Indeed,  the Court s p e c i f i c a l l y  r e c o g ­
n i z e s  th a t  one o f  the i n e v i t a b l e  consequences  o f  the  

a d j u d i c a t i o n  o f  c a s e s  i n v o l v i n g  s t a t e  o f f i c i a l s  as  
d e fen d a n ts  i s  th a t  s t a t e  funds w i l l  have to  be expended.  
The Court p o in t s  o u t ,  however,  t h a t ,  " [ s ]u c h  an a n c i l l a r y  
e f f e c t  on the s t a t e  t r e a su r y  i s  a p e r m i s s i b l e  . . . con­
sequence  o f  the p r i n c i p l e  announced i n  Ex parte  Youne 
su p r a ." 42 U.S.L.W. a t  4424 .  ------------------------

14



to  hear c e r t a i n  c a u ses  o f  a c t i o n  which c l o s e l y  

resemble a c t i o n s  f o r  monetary damages. M[A] s u i t  

th a t  seeks  the award o f  an accrued monetary l i a b i l i t y  

which must be met from the g e n e r a l  revenues o f  a S ta te  

. . ." i s  beyond the  j u r i s d i c t i o n  o f  the  f e d e r a l  c o u r t s .  

Edelman v .  Jord a n , su p r a , 42 U.S.L.W. 4419.

B. N e i th e r  Edelman nor any o f  the  purposes served  

by the E le v e n th  Amendment prec lude  the  award 

o f  a t t o r n e y s '  f e e s .

The i s s u e  now b e f o r e  t h i s  Court i s  n o t ,  as  i t  

was in  Edelman, whether  the d i s t r i c t  co u r t  had j u r i s d i c t i o n

_ 8 /

8 /  As Mr. J u s t i c e  M a r sh a l l ,  i n  d i s s e n t i n g  in  Edelman, 
noted  (42 U.S.L.W. a t  4 432 ,  n.  6 ) ,  the f a c t s  in  Edelman 
did not  p r e s e n t  the  q u e s t io n  o f  whether  the Fourteenth  
Amendment i n  any way l i m i t s ,  or a u t h o r i z e s  the Congress  
to  l i m i t ,  such immunity as  i s  c o n fer re d  by the E leventh  
Amendment. S e e ,  e . g . ,  T i t l e  VII o f  the  C i v i l  R ights  Act  
o f  1964, as amended, 42 U .S .C .  2000e e_t s e q . (Supp. II  
1972) which a u t h o r i z e s  s u i t s  by p r iv a t e  i n d i v i d u a l s  and 
the  United  S t a t e s  a g a i n s t  s t a t e  and l o c a l  governments  
(42 U .S .C .  2 0 0 0 e ( a ) )  f o r  r e l i e f  from employment d i s ­
c r i m in a t io n ,  i n c lu d i n g  back pay (42 U .S .C .  2 0 0 0 e - 5 ) .
See a l s o  C u r t i s  v .  L o e t h e r . 415 U.S.  189, 196-197 (1 9 7 4 ) .

While th ere  are c o n s i d e r a t i o n s  which s u g g e s t  t h a t  
the E lev e n th  Amendment i s  l i m i t e d  in  part  by t h e  F o u r t e e n t h ,  
and th a t  i s s u e  must e v e n t u a l l y  be dec id ed  ( p e r h a p s  i n  a 
c a se  s e e k in g  "damages" fo r  F ourteenth  Amendment v i o l a t i o n s ) ,  
we do not  f e e l  th a t  the c o u r t  must r e s o l v e  t h a t  q u e s t i o n
to  d ec id e  the i s s u e  p r e sen ted  in  th e se  c a s e s .

15



under A r t i c l e  I I I  o f  the C o n s t i t u t i o n ,  to  d e c id e  the  

c a s e s .  As noted  above, Ex pa r te  Young e s t a b l i s h e d  and 

Edelman confirm ed the  j u r i s d i c t i o n  o f  f e d e r a l  c o u r t s  to  

hear a c t i o n s  f o r  i n j u n c t i v e  r e l i e f  a g a i n s t  s t a t e  o f f i c i a l s .  

Rather,  the  q u e s t io n  p r e sen ted  here concerns  whether a 

f e d e r a l  c o u r t ,  having j u r i s d i c t i o n  to d e c id e  a c a s e ,  may 

award a t t o r n e y s '  f e e s  as  a n c i l l a r y  to  t h a t  d e c i s i o n .

In our judgment, the award o f  a t t o r n e y s '  f e e s  

i s  not  ana logous  to  the award o f  damages, h e ld  pro­

h i b i t e d  in  Edelman. In n e i t h e r  Gates nor Newman did  

p l a i n t i f f s  i n i t i a l l y  invoke the j u r i s d i c t i o n  o f  f e d e r a l  

c o u r t s  to  seek a t t o r n e y s '  f e e s .  Rather ,  the award o f  

such f e e s  was t a n g e n t i a l  to  the d e c i s i o n  rendered on 

the m e r i t s  by the d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  under i t s  e q u i t a b le  

powers.

In c h o o s in g  to  defend an a c t i o n  p roper ly  brought  

in  a f e d e r a l  forum, de fen d a n ts  must assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y

16



fo r  the normal i n c i d e n t s  o f  such a s u i t ,  in c lu d in g
9 /

c o s t s ,  w i t n e s s  f e e s ,  and a t t o r n e y s '  f e e s .  The 

Supreme Court i m p l i c i t l y  acknowledged the p e r ip h e r a l  

nature  o f  a t t o r n e y s '  f e e s  and c o s t s  in  Bradley v .  

School Board o f  the C ity  o f  Richmond, 42 U.S.L.W.  

4703 (May 15, 1 9 7 4 ) ,  which in v o lv e d  a s t a t u t e  pro­

v i d i n g  f o r  a t t o r n e y s '  f e e s  in  s c h o o l  d e s e g r e g a t io n

c a s e s .  In f i n d in g  th a t  an award o f  a t t o r n e y s '  f e e s
10 /

was a u th o r iz e d  by the s t a t u t e ,  the Court noted (42 

U.S.L.W. a t  4711 ,  emphasis s u p p l ie d )  t h a t ,  "[a]  

d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  must have d i s c r e t i o n  to  award f e e s  

and c o s t s  i n c i d e n t  to  the f i n a l  d i s p o s i t i o n  o f  

in t e r im  m a t t e r s . "

9 /  Indeed i t  f o l l o w s  i n e v i t a b l y  from the d o c t r in e  o f  
Ex Parte  Young, 209 U.S.  123 (1 9 0 8 ) ,  th a t  s t a t e s  w i l l  
be req uired  to  expend funds in  the course  o f  l i t i g a t i n g  
s u i t s  such as those  now b e f o r e  t h i s  Court, in c lu d in g  
f e e s  fo r  a t t o r n e y s  f o r  the s t a t e  d e fen d a n ts .

1 0 /  B r a d le y , dec id ed  a lm ost  two months a f t e r  Edelman, 
did not  a d v er t  to  the E lev en th  Amendment as p o s s i b l y  
b e in g  a i u r i s d i c t i o n a l  bar to  the award o f  a t t o r n e y s '  
f e e s  a g a i n s t  a l o c a l  s c h o o l  board.

17



The a rg u m en ts  f o r  th e  a p p e l l a n t s  in  G a te s  and

Newman - -  th a t  Edelman p r o h i b i t s  any f e d e r a l  court  

from imposing any monetary l i a b i l i t y  in  th e se  c i r ­

cumstances - -  would appear to  prec lude  even the award 

o f  c o s t s  in a s u i t  o th e rw ise  proper ly  in  a f e d e r a l  

c o u r t .  However, to  date  no c o u r t  has su g g e s te d  that  

in  such a c o n t e x t ,  c o s t s  may not  be awarded and, i n ­

deed,  the Court o f  Appeals  f o r  the Tenth C i r c u i t  has 

d e l i n e a t e d  the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s  o f  a s t a t e  as party  

l i t i g a n t ,  a l b e i t  as a g a i n s t  a so v e r ig n  immunity d e fen se  

r a th e r  than one based on the E leventh  Amendment. In 

S t a t e  o f  Utah v .  United  S t a t e s , 304 F.2d 23 (10th  C ir .  

1 9 6 2 ) ,  the  United  S t a t e s  had brought an a c t i o n  to  

q u i e t  t i t l e  to  a r i v e r  bed and been s u c c e s s f u l  in  the  

d i s t r i c t  c o u r t .  On a p p e a l ,  the co ur t  o f  a p p ea ls  r e ­

j e c t e d  the s t a t e ' s  c o n t e n t i o n  concern ing  c o s t s  (304 

F .2d a t  2 7 ) :

18



C o m p la in t  i s  made t h a t  the  c o u r t  
e r r e d  i n  t a x i n g  c o s t s  a g a i n s t  U tah .
I t  i s  a rg u e d  t h a t  b e in g  a s o v e r e i g n  
s t a t e ,  Utah was immunized from l i a ­
b i l i t y  f o r  c o s t s .  I t  i s  th e  g e n e r a l  
r u l e  t h a t  in  th e  a b s e n c e  o f  an 
a u t h o r i z i n g  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  o r  s t a t u ­
t o r y  p r o v i s i o n ,  a s t a t e  c o u r t  may n o t  
t a x  c o s t s  a g a i n s t  th e  S t a t e .  But t h i s  
c a s e  was n o t  in  a s t a t e  c o u r t .  I t  was 
i n  th e  U n i t e d  S t a t e s  C o u r t  f o r  U tah .
Utah was a p a r t y  l i t i g a n t  a s  a d e ­
f e n d a n t  and as  a c r o s t - c r a p l a i n a n t . The 
c o u r t  had j u r i s d i c t i o n  o f  th e  cau se  
and o f  th e  p a r t i e s .  The i n c i d e n t s  o f  
t h e  h e a r i n g  i n  th e  e x e r c i s e  o f  th e  
j u r i s d i c t i o n  o f  th e  c o u r t  i n c l u d e d  power 
t o  t a x  c o s t s .  And i n  such  c i r c u m s t a n c e s ,  
t h e  a t t r i b u t e s  o f  s o v e r e i g n t y  d id  n o t  
immunize t h e  S t a t e  a g a i n s t  th e  t a x i n g  
o f  c o s t s  a g a i n s t  i t .  11 /

11 /  See a l s o  Fairmont Creamery Co. v .  M in n e so ta , 275 
U.S.  70 (1 9 2 7 ) .  The Supreme Court r e v e rse d  a d e c i s i o n  
o f  the s t a t e  Supreme Court in  a c r im in a l  a c t i o n  brought  
by the S t a t e  o f  M innesota .  Fairmont Creamery Co. v .  
M in n e so ta , 274 U.S. 1 (1 9 2 7 ) .  The Court denied  a motion  
by the s t a t e  to  r e ta x  c o s t s  which the Court had awarded 
a g a i n s t  i t ,  s t a t i n g  t h a t ,  " [ t ]hou gh  a s o v e r e i g n ,  in  
many r e s p e c t s ,  the S t a t e  when a party to  l i t i g a t i o n  in  
t h i s  Court l o s e s  some o f  i t s  c h a r a c t e r  as su ch ."  275 
U.S.  a t  74.

19



We s u b m i t ,  t h e r e f o r e ,  t h a t  where  a f e d e r a l  c o u r t ,  

t h ro u g h  i t s  e q u i t a b l e  d i s c r e t i o n ,  f i n d s  t h a t  e i t h e r

c o s t s  o r  f e e s  a r e  a p p r o p r i a t e l y  a w a r d a b le ,  i t  has  th e
12 /

power to  g r a n t  such award .

N e i t h e r  th e  C o u r t  o f  Appeals  f o r  th e  T h i r d  C i r ­

c u i t  n o r  th e  C o u r t  o f  A p p e a ls  f o r  th e  S i x t h  C i r c u i t ,  

i n  th e  d e c i s i o n s  f i n d i n g  th e  E l e v e n t h  Amendment a b a r
13 /

to  th e  award o f  a t t o r n e y s '  f e e s ,  a d v e r t e d  to  the
14/

j u r i s d i c t i o n a l  n a t u r e  o f  th e  E l e v e n t h  Amendment.

1 2 /  The Supreme C o u r t  has  a f f i r m e d  a d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  
d e c i s i o n  which  i n c l u d e d  th e  award o f  a t t o r n e y s '  f e e s  
a g a i n s t  S t a t e  o f f i c i a l s .  Sims v .  Amos, 409 U.S. 942 
(1972) ( p e r  c u r i a m ) . The d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  had h e ld  t h a t  
t h e  E l e v e n t h  Amendment was n o t  a b a r  to  such  an award.
Sims v .  Amos, 340 F. Supp. 691,  694,  n.  8 (M.D. A la .
1 972) .  A c c o rd ,  La Raza Unida v .  V o lp e ,  57 F .R .D.  94 
(N.D. C a l i f .  1972) , a f f ' d . , 488 F .2 d  559 ( 9 t h  C i r .  1 974) ;  
B r t n d e n b u r g e r  v .  Thompson, 494 F .2 d  885 ( 9 t h  C i r .  1974) .

13 /  Skehan v .  Board o f  T r u s t e e s , ____  F .2 d  _____ (3 rd  C i r .
1 9 7 4 ) ,  and J o r d o n  v .  G i l l i g a n ,  F .2 d  (6 th  C i r .
1 974) .

14 /  Compare J o r d a n  v .  F u s a r i , 496 F .2 d  646 (2nd C i r .  1974) 
The c o u r t  t h e r e  s a i d ,  a l b e i t  i n  d i c t u m , t h a t  once th e  
j u r i s d i c t i o n a l  h i r d l e  o f  th e  E l e v e n t h  Amendment i s  c l e a r e d  
( i n  F u s a r i  by s e t t l e m e n t  r a t h e r  t h a n  in v o k in g  the  Ex p a r t e  
Young d o c t r i n e ) ,  t h a t  "we do n o t  b e l i e v e  t h a t  th e  e l e v e n t h  
amendment . . . c o u ld  b a r  th e  c l a i m  f o r  [ a t t o r n e y s ' ]  f e e s  
a l o n e . "  Id .  a t  651.

20



As n o te d  above ( s e e  pp. 9-13 , s u p r a ) , r e c o g n i t i o n  o f  

t h i s  n a t u r e  i s ,  i n  o u r  v i e w ,  e s s e n t i a l  to  th e  a p p r o ­

p r i a t e  d i s p o s i t i o n  o f  t h e s e  c a s e s  and s u g g e s t s  t h a t  

the  Amendment i s  n o t  a b a r  i n  c i r c u m s t a n c e s  where  an 

award o f  a t t o r n e y s '  f e e s  i s  o t h e r w i s e  a p p r o p r i a t e .

For  th e  f o r e g o i n g  r e a s o n s ,  we r e s p e c t f u l l y  r e ­

q u e s t  t h i s  C o u r t  t o  d e t e r m i n e  t h a t  the  E le v e n t h  Amend­

ment does n o t  b a r  th e  awards  o f  a t t o r n e y s '  f e e s  h e re  

a t  i s s u e .

CONCLUSION

R e s p e c t f u l l y  s u b m i t t e d ,

IRA DE ME NT 
H. M. RAY
U n i te d  S t a t e s  A t t o r n e y s

J .  STANLEY POTTINGER 
A s s i s t a n t  A t t o r n e y  G en e ra l

BRIAN K. LANDSBERG 
WALTER W. BARNETT 
CYNTHIA L. ATWOOD 
A t t o r n e y s
D epar tm ent  o f  J u s t i c e  
W ash in g to n ,  D. C. 20530



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I h e re b y  c e r t i f y  t h a t  I have s e r v e d  c o p ie s  o f  the

f o r e g o i n g  B r i e f  f o r  th e  U n i t e d  S t a t e s  a s  A p p e l l e e  and

amicus c u r i a e  on c o u n s e l  o f  th e  p a r t i e s  h e r e t o  by

m a i l i n g  c o p i e s  to  them, f i r s t  c l a s s ,  p o s t a g e  p r e p a i d ,

a t  th e  a d d r e s s e s  l i s t e d  be low  on t h i s  16 th  day o f

S ep tem b er ,  1974:

No. 73-2033

Mr. H e r b e r t  H. Henry 
A s s i s t a n t  A t t o r n e y  G e n e ra l  
64 North  Union 
Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Mr. Jo s e p h  P h e lp s  
A t t o r n e y  a t  Law 
36 Sou th  P e r r y  S t r e e t  
Montgomery, Alabama 36104

No. 73-1790

Mr. P. Roger Googe, J r .
S p e c i a l  A s s i s t . A t t o r n e y  G e n e ra l  o f  M i s s i s s i p p i  
P o s t  O f f i c e  Box 220 
J a c k s o n ,  M i s s i s s i p p i  39205

Mr. Edward J .  R e i l l y  
A t t o r n e y  a t  Law 
One Chase M an h a t tan  P la z a  
New Y ork ,  New York 10005



N o. 7 4 - 1 2 3 1

Mr. John W. Vardaman, J r .
A t t o r n e y  a t  Law 
1000 H i l l  B u i ld i n g  
W ash in g to n ,  D C. 20006

Mr. Lynn Taylor
A s s i s t a n t  A t t o r n e y  G e n e ra l  o f  Texas 
P o s t  O f f i c e  Box 12548, C a p i t o l  S t a t i o n  
A u s t i n ,  Texas 78711

Mr. Samuel D. McDaniel 
A t t o r n e y  a t  Law
1100 C i ty  N a t i o n a l  Bank B u i l d i n g  
A u s t i n ,  Texas 78701

Mr. H u b e r t  W. Green 
A t t o r n e y  a t  Law 
900 Alamo N a t i o n a l  B u i l d i n g  
San A n t o n i o ,  Texas 78205

Mr. Crawford  B. Ruder 
C i ty  A t t o r n e y  
P o s t  O f f i c e  Box 9066 
San A n t o n i o ,  Texas 78285

No. 73-1894

Mr. Howard A. Mandel l  
A t t o r n e y  a t  Law 
P o s t  O f f i c e  Box 1904 
Montgomery, Alabama 36103

Mr. N e i l  B ra d le y  
A t t o r n e y  a t  Law 
52 F a i r l i e  S t r e e t ,  N. W. 
A t l a n t a ,  G eorg ia  30303



Ms. Ann Wagner
A ttorney  a t  Law
10 Columbus C i r c l e ,  S u i t e  2030
New York, New York 10019

Mr. Richard H. Dorrough 
A ttorney  a t  Law 
Post  O f f i c e  Box 429  
Montgomery, Alabama 36101

Department o f  J u s t i c e  
Washington,  D. C 20530

A tto r n e y  f o r  the United  S t a t e s