Complaint with cover letter to Charles Williams from James Blacksher

Correspondence
December 9, 1975

Cite this item
Complaint with cover letter to Charles Williams from James Blacksher preview

6 pages

Cite this item

  • Legal Department General, Lani Guinier Correspondence. Correspondence from Pamela Karlan to Gilbert Ganucheau (Clerk) Re: Chisom v. Edwards, 1987. d4c59bc2-eb92-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/2eae5158-b46b-481e-ab3f-beff3c6219df/correspondence-from-pamela-karlan-to-gilbert-ganucheau-clerk-re-chisom-v-edwards. Accessed May 02, 2025.

    Copied!

    JuIy L4, L987

Hon. Gilbert F. Ganucheau
Clerk
United States Court of Appeals
for the fifth Circuit
600 Camp Street
New Orleans, LA 70130

Re: No. 87-3463, Chisom v. Edwards

Dear Mr. Ganucheau:

On July 10, L987, the Court of Appeals remanded this case to
the district court (8.D. L€1.7 Charles Schwartz, Jr., J.) for the
linited purpose of allowing that court to amend its written
opinion of May 1, L987. Appellants received a copy of the
district court's subsequent order amending its opinion and a copy
of the amended opinion on July L4, L987.

Appellants had, hohrever, already filed our brief and record
excerpts. We mailed the brief and record excerpts to your office
on July 9, L987, and they were apparently received on JuIy 13,
L987.

Appellants do not believe that the district courtrs
amendment changes the thrust of our arg'uments, although it
renders unnecessar-y the discussion on pages 18-20 of our brief of
why the district court erred in concluding that Wells v. Edwards,
347 F. Supp. 453 (M.D. La. L973) (three-judge court), affrd, 409
U:S. 1095 (L974) (per curiam), construed section 2 of the Voting
Rights Act. Particularly in light of the fact that we have moved
to expedite this appealr w€ see no need to amend the substance of
our brief.

We do, however, recognize, that the opinion of the district
court contained in the Record Excerpts at pages 5-16 has been
superseded by the amended opinj.on. We therefore ask your
guidance regardi.ng how best to proceed so that the court will
have before it the current version of the district courtrs
opinion and will not be confused by references in our brief.

Respectfullv.

A"JStG't*
Pamela S. Karlan
Counsel for Appellants

cc: all counsel

NINETY NINE HUDSON STREET, 16th FLOOR (212) 219-1900 NEW YORK, N.Y. 10013

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