Motion for a New Trial; Notice of Motion; Memorandum in Support of Motion for New Trial

    VHITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUIEIANS 

NEW ORLEANS PIVIAION 

8ST TYESES FT RMITRY TIPE oe AY & 
ai B® RE ACL TN Al iN aE 153 5 a Miad ¥ 

PSST BY BATT EE SMITTY. TA Sy 12 8 tT TY &5TL Fit 

Defendants 1 

ws A Minor, 
A PRE a 

CONNLE 
Ey wi] 

Hey Guardiss ana ea A 

Plaintirfe-~Intervenors 

La BE OIE IE NOE EE EE EEE EEE EEE 

MOTION POR A 

Defendants, Risley C. Triche, E. Ww, Gravolet, Jv.; 

Willian J, Cleveland, Charles E. Delchasmn, Bdwasd 7. leBreton, 

dr., Pavey P. Pragton, Vail EH. Delony and Wellbors Jack, the 

Joint legislative Orleans Parish School Comaittee, move the 

Court Co set snide the findings of fact snd sone lhusions of 

iow in the obder entered herels on April 3, 1962, and the ine 

unction drafted by the Court to coupel the enforecuent of tuls 

prder and Co grant defendants a new trial on the grounds that: 

1. 

2ngt the Julgsent 18 contrary €0O law in that it fails to 

recognise the systematic and effective npnuer in which the 

transition from segregated to desegregnted school hes been 

carried out by the Orleans Parish School Ioard setting in good 

faith compliance with the constitutional principles met forth 

in the Mey 17. 1954 decision. 

 & 

That the Judgaent ig contrary to law in that it falls to 

fecognice that additional time for the c¢ouplete transition is 



yet necessary in the public interest and that such sdditional 

tine would de conaistent with good faith compliance av the 

earliest practical date, 

III. 

That the judgaent is contrary to law in that Che hearing 

and determination of an application for sm interlocutory ine 

junction restraining the enforcerent, operation or execution 

of any State statute by restraining the section of any officer 

of such State in the enforcement or oxecution of such statute 

on the ground of the umeconstitutionality of such statute is 

not properly cognizable by smy district court or judge thereof, 

iv. 

That the Hidssent is contrary to law in that it has heard 

and favorably determined an attack on the comstitutiomality of 

the louisians Pupil Placement Act and 1% has restrained The 

enforcement and operation of said act on the ground of the une 

constitutionality of sald act. 

» 

Special Counsel 

Attorney for Defendants, 
Risley C. Triche, 
E. WW. Gravolet, Jr., 
Willies J. Clevelsnd, 
Chavies EE. Delchaanm, 
Rdward FP. leBreton, Jr., 
Parey P. Branton, 
Vail M. Delony, 
Wellborn Jack, the 
Joint lescislative Orleans 
Parish School Committee 



fo
r 

dr ea FE 5 1 



JACK QRERNEERG 

JAMES 
ATTORY 

Mo. NAR BRIT TIT 
i AT TAN 

10 COLUMBUS cL RCI 

Ra i pe bo Tam on FT, | a, ile 

the defendants, Risley CC, Triche, BE. 

Jr., Parey 

Joint legl 

Cle gveland, Chax rien 

Branton, Vall 

end day of May, 1062, 

¥. Gravolet, Jv... 

5s Dodchmann, Bdward F. leBret 

slative Orleans Parish Soh 

Ms Delony and Wellborn Jack, the 

001 Comittee, by thelr 

undersigned attorney, will bring on the attached Motion for 

Hew Trial, | 

Bastern Di 

10:00 o'el 

heard. 

before the hited 

gerict of louisiana, 

on 
ka 88 £5, 50s Matriet Court for the 

Hew Orleans Division, at 

00K Ae, OF 88 soon therealter as counsel can be 

om, 

SAD Re FARRER, So = JR Hui b 

Spee ial £ ounsel 

a> 

New Ovicars. 16, "Lom pisi ans 

Attor ney for Defendants, 
Risley 

£. W, 
G Ww Tri che 3 

Wl 114m J . c leve land, 
Charles E. Delchammn, 
Bway a | Co 18By CVO, Foi # 

¥ Farey Pe. Branton, 
veil NM. Delony, 
Weliborn Jack, the 

Parish 
legislative Orleans 
School Committee 



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify timt 8 copy of the Motion for a 

New Trial and Notice of Notion were served upon the 

following named persons by depositing same in the 

inited States med 1 in an envelope addressed Lo each, 

postage prepald: 

TO: 

SAMUEL 1. ROSENBERG 
ATTORNEY AT LAW 
NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE BDULLDING 
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 

HON, JACK P, ¥, GREMILLIION 
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF LOUISIANA 
CAPITOL BUILDING 
BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA 

HON. ALVIN J, LISKA 
CITY ATTORNEY 
CITY HALL 
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 

CHARLES BE, RICHARDS 
ATTORNEY AT LAW 
CIVIC CENTER BULLDING 
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 

MISS KATHLEEN RUDDELL 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
FEDERAL BUILDING 
LAPAYETTE SQUARE 
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA 

A, P, TUREBAUD 
SRNEST N. MORIAL 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
1821 ORLEANS AVENUE 
NEW ORLEANS 16, LOUISIANA 

JACK GREENBERG 
CONSTANCE BAKER MOTLEY 
JAMES M, NABRIT, III 
ATTORNEYS AT LAW 
10 coLmB? CIRCLE 
NEW YORK 19, NEW YORK 

b+ % Ay : 3 aE HAND I. PANN; won 
Special Counsel 

Attorney for Defendants, 
Risley C. Triche, 
EB. ¥. Gravolet, Jr. 
William J. Cleveland, 
Charles E. Delchasnn, 
Edward F. leBreton, Jr., 
Farey P. Branton, 
Vail HM. Delony, 
Wellborn Jack, the 
Joint legislative Orleans 
Parish School Committee 



4 
oo 

a
 

& 
’ 

2 
: 

: 
Bn 

w
i
d
 

£ 
pres 

i 
v 

4 
¥ 

i 

: 
i
$
 

§ 
%
 

4 
s 

Fr 

g 
y 

d 
c
i
l
 

V 
5
 

% 
i 

k 
: 

- 
; 

2 
> 

Road 
3 

A 
2 

3 
’ 

“ 
oi 

3
 

3 
w
h
 

g%a 
i 

.
 

E 
i 

3 
$ 

£
1
 

r
e
n
i
n
 

¥ 
y- 

3 
. 

M
 

E 
: 

. 
: 

4 
$ 

¥ 
Lt 

v 
ha 

y 
: 

3 
8 

3
 

“ 
3 

4 
" 

: 
: 

ie 
4 

4
 

A 

# 
" 

» 
a
 

“rh 
§ 

* 
,
 

%
 

o
s
 

E 
. 

3 
" 

5 
Fad 

3s 
a 

A 
4 

” 
3
 

»
 

¥ 
< 

y
r
 

; 
£ 

5
 

3
 

: 

-
 

a
d
 

p) 
: 

7
 

" 
es 

“. 
” 

a
 

3 
g
d
 

’ 
¥ 

i 
» 

E 
%
 

b’ 
" 

y 
h
e
 

i
d
 

; 
i 

ah 
z 

’ 
¥ 

p 
3 

pot 
ag 

4 
5 

» 
i 

® 
a
 

po 
" 

l
 

3
 

n 
4 

"
 

5 
~ 

a
 

bes 
; 

. 
L
 

i 
"
 

’ 
4 

fg 
a
 

3 
4 

1
 

ul 

. 
E
S
 

a
E
 

4 
p
i
e
l
 

3 

- 
wed 

3 
% 

Fa, 
. 

— 



result of non-compliance nor the result of unequal facilities 

but rather is due to the fact, as shown in the Court's reasons 

for judgment, that only 200 Negro children, or one and one-half 

percent of the 13,000 eligible to attend desesregated schools, 

even applied for admission thereto. There is no basis for a be- 

lief that the sere ordering of total desegregation in grades one 

through six will cause more Negro children to apply for admission 

to "formerly all white" schools. And it cannot be gainsaid that 

the ordering of tod desegregation is in keeping with the period 

of transition provided for in the decision of May 17. 1954. 

The grade a year plan, vhiech is now in effect in the 

Orleans Parish School system, has stood the test of reasonable 

ness. IC provides an effective deliberate transition towards 

total desegregation, especially when considered in the light that 

most schools are located in sll white neighborhoods or in all 

colored neighborhoods. It is not realistic to start counting 

ne number of Negro children in schools located in all white 

neighborhoods. It is further not reslistic to suwpest that a 

white child or a Negro child may transfer from hiw own neighborhood 

gehool To that of another merely because the facilities are better. 

Surely, if the population trends were reversed, it would be the 

formerly all white schools that would have the lesser facilities 

spoken of in the Court's order. 

There should be no question at this late date but that 

the Orleans Parish School Board is going to equalire the facilities 

ingofar as schools in white neighborhoods and schools in colored 

neighborhoods are concermgi. That is strictly a matter of finances 

and birth rate. You cannot order all of the children in New Orleans 

to attend the best schools. And you cannot make the better schools 

available on an equal basis to all school children without regard to 

the question of neighborhood. It is well known that there are today 

some all white neighborhoods which have no public schools, much less 



|
 

a
 

f
i
 



pray 

t
p
 

5
%
 

a 
ing 

t 
3 

a
t
 

ye 

: 
i 

a 
x 

3 
| 

w
e
 

, 
3 

: 

& 
2 

o
d
 

oo 

w
l
 

o
d
 

f
o
d
 

a
 

% 

5
 

b
o
 |