District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Company Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amicus Curiae

    1ST THE

^upmtu' (tort at tip Imtefr &tnP$
October Term, 1952

No. 617

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

JOHN R. THOMPSON COMPANY, INC.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AS 
AMICUS CURIAE

T hurgood Marshall,
R obert L. Carter,
D avid E. P iktskt,

Counsel for the N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense 
and Educational Fund, Inc.

Supreme Printing Co., Inc., 41 M urray Street, N. Y., BArclay 7-0349



IN  TH E

Supreme ( ta r t  nf tfje IntteS I to ta
October Term, 1952

No. 617

-----------------------------------------------------o —  ----------------------------- -— —

D istrict of Columbia,

v.

J ohn R. T hompson Company, I nc.
-------- --------------------- o-----------------------------

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AS 
AMICUS CURIAE

To the Honorable, the Chief Justice of the 
United States cmd the Associate Justices 
of the Supreme Court of the United States:

The N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense and Educational Fund, 
Inc., pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 
of the United States, moves for leave to file a brief as 
amicus curiae in the case of District of Columbia v. John 
R. Thompson Company, Inc., No. 617 in this Court,

I. Consent to file such brief has been requested of the 
parties. The District of Columbia granted consent. The 
John R. Thompson Company, Inc., has refused consent.

II. Movant is a national organization engaged in com­
batting racial discrimination in the United States. One 
of its principal purposes is to secure judicial recognition 
and enforcement of federal, state and local enactments 
prohibiting discrimination based on race or color.

Each of the 280,000 Negroes residing in the District of 
Columbia has a direct personal stake in the outcome of



2

this case. The Equal Service Acts of 1872 and 1873 gave 
all persons the right to receive the essential public services 
provided by hotels, restaurants, barber shops and other 
places of public accommodation without discrimination on 
account of race or color. If the decision of the court below 
invalidating these Acts is upheld, Negro residents par­
ticularly will lose vital and precious personal rights.

The impact of this decision on Negroes residing outside 
the District of Columbia will be equally as great. The 
District of Columbia, the seat of our government, attracts 
innumerable visitors who come to observe the processes 
of democratic government in action and to see the monu­
ments and memorials which symbolize our history. As 
travellers, they are dependent on hotels and restaurants for 
lodging and food. Unless they can be assured such essen­
tial services, their privileges as citizens to visit the seat 
of our government will continue to be seriously abridged.

As vital as the direct effect of this decision will be, its 
indirect repercussions will be even more significant. The 
District of Columbia symbolizes American democracy. So 
long as racial discrimination in places of public accommoda­
tion is sanctioned by law in the heart of the nation, efforts 
to eliminate it in other areas will necessarily encounter 
stiff resistance. Once it is clear, however, that racial 
discrimination in our capital has no legal warrant, the 
great mass of national opinion seeking to eliminate racial 
barriers will be swelled with new moral strength and vigor. 
Thus, the elimination of racial discrimination in places of 
public accommodation in the District of Columbia is 
especially significant to America’s progress toward full 
equality for all persons.

III. Movant has not seen the briefs on the merits in this 
Court and it is of the opinion that these have not yet been 
.submitted. However, it does not believe that the follow­
ing questions of law will be adequately presented.



3

A. Movant does not believe that the parties, in dealing 
with the law with respect to municipal corporations, will 
give sufficient attention to the public policy considerations 
which favor local governmental effort toward the elimina­
tion of racial discrimination and the broad national policy 
against racial discrimination.

1. The power of local communities to deal with the 
problems of racial discrimination on a local level is ren­
dered extremely questionable in the light of the decision 
of the Court of Appeals. Until now the validity of local 
enactments in the field of civil rights has never been seri­
ously questioned. In recent years, many communities have 
attempted to deal with various facets of racial discrimina­
tion by the enactment of local ordinances. Fair employ­
ment practice ordinances are now in effect in Chicago, 
Minneapolis, Cleveland, Youngstown, Philadelphia, Mil­
waukee, and many other cities, thus insuring to hundreds 
of thousands of Negroes the right to be free from discrimi­
nation in employment. The validity of these ordinances 
has suddenly become suspect in the light of decision of the 
Court of Appeals. While their legality is a matter of state 
law, the decision of the court below stands as a formidable 
precedent. Moreover, the status of territorial acts enacted 
in Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands prohibiting 
racial discrimination in places of public accommodation 
now becomes uncertain. If this decision stands, much of the 
substantial grass roots progress in eliminating racial dis­
crimination will be seriously imperiled.

2. In deciding that the Legislative Assembly for the 
District of Columbia had no power to enact the Equal 
Service Acts of 1872 and 1873, the Court below distinguished 
the authorities which hold that ordinances requiring segre­
gation are within the bounds of municipal power. This 
distinction is predicated on the ground that such ordinances 
are in accord with custom and, hence, necessary to the 
preservation of peace and order. Movant believes that



4

this rationale is unsound and extremely prejudicial to the 
rights of all minorities, for local custom may often be in 
conflict with the rights of a minority and even the public 
policy of the state at large.

The theory of the Court below imports into the law of 
municipal corporations a new and confusing doctrine. If 
it prevails, the validity of anti-discrimination ordinances 
may depend on a factual determination as to whether they 
are in accord or in conflict with local custom. Movant does 
not believe that the full effect of this theory on civil rights 
generally will be adequately explored by the parties. More­
over, movant does not believe that the parties will give 
adequate consideration to the broad national policy against 
racial discrimination of every kind.

B. A majority of the Court of Appeals did not concur 
in the opinion of Chief Judge Stephens. As a result, the 
separate concurring opinion of Judge Prettyman takes on 
added significance. The position of Judge Prettyman is 
that, assuming the Legislative Assembly had the power to 
enact the Equal Service Acts, they were, in effect, munici­
pal ordinances which have now lost all force and effect 
through abandonment and non-user. Ordinances and stat­
utes protecting minority rights may often be frustrated by 
apathy or even hostility on the part of some law enforce­
ment officials. Under the theory set forth in the concurring 
opinion below, such prolonged apathy or hostility may 
result in nullification of the enactment.

Movant does not believe that the impact of this doctrine 
on the rights of Negroes generally and its total ramifica­
tions will be fully presented. And it does not believe that 
the parties, in dealing with this issue, will give adequate 
consideration to the broad national policy against racial 
discriminaton of every kind.



5

IV. Movant submits that the above considerations are 
relevant to the issues at the bar and to the particular hold­
ing which may emanate from this Court.

W herefore movant moves for leave to file a brief herein 
as amicus curiae.

Respectfully submitted,

T hurgood Marshall,
R obert I j . Carter,
David E. Pin sk y.

Counsel for the N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense 
and Educational Fund, Inc.