Summary of Statement; Statement on the History of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund; Greenberg Statement Re: Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham

    NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. 
lund 10 Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y. 10019 ¢ (212) 586-8397 

For immediate release 

New York, N. Y., April 16 -- Attached is a ten-page, 

documented statement - prepared for the staff, Board and 

Cooperating Attorneys of the Legal Defense Fund - describing 

the history of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, 

Inc., its involvement in Brown v. Board of Education, its 

relationship with the National Association for the Advancement 

of Colored People and related matters. 

Summary of Statement: Briefly, LDF is 39 years old, was founded 

by NAACP board members, its first Director-Counsel was Thurgood 

Marshall, its only other Director-Counsel has been Jack Greenberg, 

who has been on the staff for 30 years. The Associate Counsel 

is James M. Nabrit, III, who has been at LDF for 20 years. The 

board of 75 members is headed by Chairman William T. Coleman, Jr., 

associated with LDF for 22 years, and President Julius LeVonne 

Chambers, associated with LDF since 1961. The staff numbers 106, 

including 22 lawyers. There are 400 ccoperating attorneys. 

LDF has been a separate corporation since 1940. Between 

1941 and 1952 LDF rented offices in the NAACP headquarters, 

-more- 

Contributions are deductible for U.S. income tax purposes 
The NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND is not part of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People although it 
was founded by it and shares its commitment to equal rights. LDF has had for over 20 years a separate Board, program, sta‘t, office and budget. 



some staff members served both organizations. In 1953 LDF 

moved to separate quarters. 

LDF salaried lawyers argued 4 of the 5 Brown cases before 

the Supreme Court. The fifth was argued by James M. Nabrit, dr., 

now an LDF board member, then a Howard University law professor, 

not connected with either organization. A score of lawyers 

adsisted? some connected with NAACP branches, others not. The 

leader was Thurgood Marshall. The center of the work was at 

LDF offices on West 43rd Street in New York City. All expenses 

of Brown were paid by LDF. Plaintiffs, except in the District 

of Columbia, were associated with NAACP branches. LDF has 

recognized their heroism and honored them at annual celebrations 

of Brown. The effort leading to Brown began with a grant from 

the American Fund for Public Service to the NAACP in 1929, which 

led to a study that made proposals implemented by Thurgood 

Marshall and others and later by him under the aegis LDF. 

LDF has fought virtually all principal Supreme Court cases 

integrating southern schools, represented the demonstrators of 

the '60's including Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and has been 

the principal enforcer of the Civil Rights Acts of the mid- 

sixties in employment, housing, voting. LDF's Earl Warren 

Legal Training Program, and Herbert Lehman Educational Fund 

have provided 24 million dollars to 1,121 black students in 

71 law schools. 



LDF regularly has celebrated Brown. Speakers have 

included: Earl Warren, Martin Luther King, Jr., Robert 

F. Kennedy, Edward Kennedy, Walter Mondale, etc. 

In 1957 the Internal Revenue Service required that the 

overlapping of board of directors between NAACP and LDF cease. 

Board, budget, staff and program of both organizations were 

completely separated, but LDF handles some cases in cooperation 

with NAACP branches and with other organizations. LDF, however, 

typically represents citizens affiliated with no civil rights 

groups. LDF has no policies opposing those of the NAACP, which 

now has a tax exempt fund for support of its own work. Its 

General Counsel has handled a variety of civil rights matters, 

including important civil rights cases in the North. 

LDF raises funds from individuals, foundations and corp- 

orations, all of whom are clearly informed about LDF and 

understand the policies and activities of organizations to 

which they give. Many large foundations and corporations con- 

tribute both to NAACP and LDF. LDF stationery and literature 

make quite clear that we have a separate board, staff, budget 

and program and are not part of NAACP. LDF's accounting pro- 

cedures insure that any gift earmarked for NAACP but mailed to 

LDF shall be sent to the NAACP. LDF fund raising appeals are 

based on LDF programs and not on criticism of other groups. 

ea 



FACTS ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE 
N.A.A.C.P. LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL 
FUND, INC. (LDF) AND THE NATIONAL ASSO- 
CIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED 

PEOPLE (NAACP) 

Recent news accounts relating to the NAACP Legal Defense 

Fund's plan to observe the 25th anniversary of the United States 

Supreme Court's decision outlawing racial segregation in Brown v. 

Board of Education have caused the press and public to ask us 

questions about the relations between LDF and the NAACP. LDF has 

prepared this fact sheet to answer some of the common questions. 

QUESTIONS 

is What is LDF? Who founded it? When did it begin operations? 

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. -- commonly 

called LDF -- is now 39 years old. It was incorporated in New York 

on March 20, 1940 by seven people who were then leaders of the NAACP. 

Its charter stated that its purpose was to render free leg i 

"Negroes ... who are suffering legal injustice by reason of race or 

color" and who were “unable to employ counsel cn account of poverty." 

Its purposes from the beginning also included an object "to seek and 

promote the educational facilities for Negroes who are denied the 

same by reason of race or color." 

The seven founders cf LDF included long-time NAACP President 

Arthur B. Spingarn, who became LDF's first President, Dz. William 

A. Neilson, Judge William H. Hastie, New York Governor Herbert H. 

Lehman, Judge Charles E. Toney, Judge Hubert T. Delany, and Mary 

White Ovington, one of the group who- founded the NAACP in 1909. 

The LDF was granted a tax exemption by the Internal Revenue 

Service and began operations in 1940. Thurgood Marshall was chosen 

as LDF's first counsel ané the late Frank D. Reeves was employed as 

his legal research assistant. Th 

Walter White was elected secretary of W. 

assistant secretary. 

= ore = 



2. Who are the present leaders of LDF? 

The LDF has had only two executive directors (the title is 

"Director-Counsel") in its 39 year history: Thurgood Marshall from 

1940-1961, and Jack Greenberg from 1961 to date. Jack Greenberg, 

one of the lawyers who argued Brown, has worked at LDF for 30 years. 

The Chairman of LDF's board of directors is William T. Coleman, cr. . 

former Secretary of Transportation), who began working on the 

Brown case with Thurgeod Marshall in 1950 and who has served on 

LDF's board for 22 years. LDF's President is Julius LeVonne Chambers 

whose association with LDF began in 1961 when he was one of the 

first two participants in the LDF civil rights legal internship 

Program. LDF's Vice President, Wiley A. Branton (Dean of Howard Law 

School) has been connected with the organization since he was counsel 

in the Little Rock school case beginning in 1956.. LDF's Treasurer 

Lois Cowles has served as Treasurer since 1957; she has been a 

board member since 1952. LDF Secretaries George D. Cannon and 

Constance S. Lindau. have been on the board since 1947 and 1961, 

respectively. LDF's Associate Counsel James M. Nabrit, III has been 

a lawyer at the Fund since 1959 and Associate Counsel since 1965. 

LDF's Board of Directors of about 75 people is an interracial group 

representing a broad spectrum of American life; by policy slightly 

over half of the group are lawyers. A list is attached. LDF has an 

interracial staff of 106, including 22 lawyers in offices in New 

York and Washington, D.C. In addition LDF works with a network of 

several hundred cooperating lawyers including 89 lawyers who have 

participated in four-year LDF internship and fellowship programs. 

Je What was the relation between NAACP and LDF in the early vears? 

From its beginning in 1940 LDF has been a separate corporaticn 

with its own separate funds and board of directors. 

1941 to 1952 LDF staff sented offices i 

quarters, and a few stati members served 

employ additional lawyers, and staf, and 

- more - 



and the LDF staff moved to a separate LDF of 

Street in New York, about three blocks from the NAACP national 

fice. By 1953 LDF received annual contributions of slightly 

ice on West 43rd 

more than a quarter million dollars. 

4.- What was the role of LDF in the case of Brown v. Board of 
Education -and the other tour school seqrecation cases cecided 

in 1954? Does LDF claim credit for the cases to the exclusion 
of others? 

LDF salaried stafi lawyers orally argued four of the five cases. 

decided by the Supreme Court on May 17, 1954. Director-Counsel 

Thurgecd Marshall argued the South Carolina case. -His first assis- 

tant counsel at LDF Robert Carter (now U.S. District Judge in the 

Southern District cf New York) argued the Topeka, Kansas case. 

Jack Greenberg, the present LDF Director-Counsel argued the Delaware 

case, sharing the argument with Louis L. Redding who was LDF's 

cooperating attorney from Wilmington. Spottswood W. Robinson, III 

(now Judge of the U.S. Court of Apreals for the District 

Circuit) who was then LDF's regional counsel in the scuthea. 

the Virginia case. The District of Columbia case, Bol 

was argued by Dr. James M. Nabrit, Jr., President Emeritus 

University, who was then a member of the Howard University Law 

faculty, and by the late George E. C. Hayes of Washington, D.C. 

Although Dr. Nabrit has been a member of LDF's board for many years, 

the trict of Columbia case was not regarded as an LDF case or an 

NAACP case at the time of Brown. Many other lawyers worked cn the 

trials, appeals and briefs in the cases.— 2/ Some were connected with 

say The lawyers on-the brief in Brown, in addition to the lawyers 
Tisted in the text who made oral argument, wer Oliver W. Hill, 
Harold Boulware, Charles L. Black, Jr., Louis =. Pollak, Charles S. 
Scott, John Scott, Charles T. Duncan, Herbert ©. Reid, Elwcod &. 
Giaeno! im, Loren Mi. ities, William R. Ming, Jx., Constance Saker M 
David =. Pinsky, Frank D. Reeves and Jack B. Wein: tein. 



NAACP branches while others were not. But the acknowledged leader 

of the legal activity was Thurgood Marshall and the center of the 

work was the LDF office on West 43rd Street in New York. All of 

the expenses of the Brown cases, for briefs, records, printing, 

travel, experts and so forth were paid by LDF. 

The legal effort leading to Brown began in 1929 with a grant 

by the American Fund for Public Service to the NAACP which led to. 

writing the Margold Report, a blueprint for ending segregation 

through courtroom action. A campaign was mapped out in the early 

thirties, led by Charles H. Houston, William H. Hastie and Thurgood 

Marshall to develop and implement the proposals of that report. 

The NAACP Legal Defense Fund was formed, in large part, to imple- 

ment that effort. The NAACP’ is further linked with Brown in that 

in éach of the cases except the District of Columbia case, the 

plaintiffs who were represented in court by the LDF lawyers were 

associated with local branches of the NAACP. LDF acknowledces 

that the school cases would not have been possible without the 

heroism and sacrifice of the clients and other community leaders, 

many of them officials of the NAACP, who risked everything to 

against discrimination. LDF honors these leaders, and has done so 

at its annual celebrations of the Brown decisicn for many years. 

LDF is proud of its own role in the cases but does not in the 

least disparage the accomplishments of others. The story of the re- 

markable efforts of both laymen and lawyers which led to the abolition 

of legalized segregation is told in Richard Kluger's SIMPLE JUSTICE, 

which is now also available in a paperback Soe On LDF is happy to 

leave to historians and others the task of appraising the relative 

contributions of those who participated in the cases. In an esséey 

written for inclusion in a forthcoming booklet being prepared 

he 25th Anniversary of the Brown decision Richard Kluger called the 

own case an LDF victory: 

the waning cays 
years 

"On December 9, 1952, i: 
esidency of Harry Truman, 

- more=- 



tion Proclamation, 163 years after the ratification 
of the Constitution, and 333 years after the first 
African slave was known to have been brought to the 
shores of the New World, the Supreme Court convened 

to hear arguments on whether the white people of the 
United States might continue to treat the black 
people as their subjects. 

"Another year and a half would pass before the 
Justices decided Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 
the climax of a legal crusade more than two decaces in 
the making._ The decisive battle, won by a small com- 
pany of mostly black attorneys under the flag of the 
NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Inc., turned May 17, 1954, 
into a milestone in American history."*/ 

We do not, by quoting this passage, wish to suggest that Mr. 

Kluger, any more than LDF, would deny credit to the NAACP for its 

own important role in the Brown case. 

. What has LDF done to enforce the Brown decision? ur
 

LDF has maintained a vigorous litigation program to enforce th 

Brown decision in the courts. It has brought hundreds of suits against 

lecal school districts, as well as cases to enforce the decision in 

segregated universities. Since Brown, LDF lawyers have handled the 

major cases involving school integration decided by the United 

m States Supreme Court including: Cooper v. Aaron (1958) invelvin¢e 

Little Rock, Arkansas; Goss v. Board of Education of Knoxville, Tenn. 

(1963) involving pupil transfer rules; Bradley v. School Board c= 

Richmond (1965) faculty segregation held unlawful; Green v. Ccunty 

School Board (1968), establishing the affirmative duty of school 

boards to integrate schools; Alexander v. Holmes County Boarc of 

Education (1969) ending the "all deliberate speed" doctrine and orcer- 

ing immediate compliance with Brown; Swann v. Charlotte-Meckenbur¢ 

Board of Education (1971) approving bus transportation as a remedial 

device in schcol integration plans: Keves_v. School District No. i, 

Denver, Cole. (1973), the first non-scuthern schcol district where 

it 

= more - 



the Supreme Court ordered systemwide desegregation. LDF also 

handled cases to integrate the Universities of Mississippi (the 

Meredith case), Alabama (where George Wallace stood in the school- 

house decor), Louisiana, Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, South 

Carolina, Tennessee, and elsewhere. 

Brown led to the demonstrations of the '60's and LDF rep- 

resented Dr. Martin Luther King (in the Selma to Montgomery march, 

in Birmingham and elsewhere) and all the other non-violent groups, 

winning over 40 Supreme Court cases. Roy Wilkins, NAACP Executive 

Director, played a pivotal role in translating the national mood 

into national political consensus. 

When the Civil Rights Acts of the mid-sixties were passed, LDF 

led in implementing their provisions involving public accommodations, 

employment, housing, voting and education in hundreds of lawsuits. 

LDF also has brought cases involving prisoners' rights and capital 

punishment in which racial discrimination has played so important a 

Part. No organization, not even the Department of Justice, has 

brought more leading cases in these areas than LDF. Everyone ack- 

nowledges the NAACP's leadership and the brilliance of Clarence 

Mitchell, its former Washington Bureau Chief, in securing passage 

ef the Civil Rights Act. 

LOF's Earl Warren Legal Training Program, and the Herbert Lehman 

Education Fund have provided scholarships totaling almost $2.5 million 

to 1121 students in 71 accredited law schools in 30 states and the 

District of Columbia. 

6. Has LDF regularly celebrated the anniversary of Brown? 

LDF has had annual luncheons or dinners since the mid-1960's 

to mark the anniversary of Brown attended by thousands of people 

who have heard speeches by distinguished leaders including Chiet 

Justice Earl Warren, Dr. Martin Luther % 

P. Kennedy, Senator Edward Kennedy, Senator Walter Mondale, Attorney 

g, Jt., Senator Robert 

General Ramsey Clark, Columnist Carl Rowan, etc. The speaker 

at this vear's 25th Anniversary dinner will be Howard University 

- more - 



ae 

Law School Dean Wiley A. Branton. Howard University, of course, was 

where much of the planning for the Brown case took place. 

1. What is the present relationship between LDF and the NAACP? 
How has it chanced over the years? 

In 1956 and 1957 LDF's tax exemption was challenged by Southern 

politicians opposed ta schcol integration. They claimed that LDF 

had too close a relationship with the NAACP, which engaged in lebby- 

ing and political activities which were at that time prohibited for 

tax exempt organizations. This attack was launched during the era 

of massive resistance when Alabama, Texas and Virginia were also 

engaged in efforts to destroy both the NAACP and LDF. In fact 

Alabama succeeded in putting the NAACP out of business in that state 

for several years with a court injunction. Because of its separation 

LDF was able to continue to function in Alabama, handling cases far 

Martin Luther King, Jr. and other civil ‘rights groups. In May 1957, 

after an extended negotiation with the Internal Revenue Service, 

LDF reorganized its Board of Directors with a resoluticn which pro- 

vided that no directors would serve on both the board of 

NAACP, and that no employees would work on both sta: 

reorganization the IRS investigation of LDF continued for several 

years, but the strong threat to withdraw LDF's tax exemption ended. 

Since 1957 the LDF and NAACP have functioned without any overlap of 

board and stati positions. Board, budget, staf= and program of both 

organizations are completely separate. However, LDF lawvers h 

worked in cooperation with NAACP branches in a large number of cases 

since -1957, and LDF’ has also represented many people affiliated with 

other civil rights groups. . For example, in the 1960's, LDF repre- 

sented Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Southern Christian Leader- 

ship Conference.in many cases, represented the Congress of Raci. 

Equality (CORE) in the Freedom Rides, and the Student Neon 

Coordinating Committee (SNCC) in many voter registration 

Urban the National tions. LDF recently led br 

«STs Howard University Law School and the 

= more = 



LOF has represented Gary, Indiana Mayor Richard Hatcher in a case 

involving discrimination in hospital service and the City of Detroit 

in a case involving affirmative action. LDF lawyers, however, 

typically represent citizens affiliated with no civil rights 

groups. 

Although LDF has no continuing affiliation with the NAACP, it 

has no policies opposed to the Association. LDF is not aware of 

any significant civil rights issue on which it has adopted a 

Position opposed to that adopted by the NAACP. Both organizations 

have maintained a position of vigorous support of school intecration. 

At the NAACP's request LDF recently filed a brief in support of the 

NAACP's position in the Dayton and Columbus school cases. 

The NAACP in the late 1960's established the NAACP Special 

Contribution Fund, which now provides a tax exempt fund for the 

support of the NAACP's work. The NAACP has maintained its own legal 

start uncer the direction of its General Counsel, and that stait has 

handled a variety of civil rights matters in the courts, including 

a number of important schcol segregation cases in the North, such 

as the Beston, Detroit, Dayton and Columbus school cases. The 

official policy of the LDF Beard is one of offering to cccoperate 

with the NAACP on civil rights issues, and to urge the public to 

support both organizations. 

8. Where does LDF cet its monev? Does it compete with the NAACP 
for funds? 

LDF has approximately 60,000 contributors who in 1978 gave a 

total of $4.3 million to support the program. LDF's fund raising - 

efforts are diversified. Over the years millions of pieces of mail 

seeking contributions have been mailed by "The Committee of 100" 

in support of LDF. These mailings solicit support for particular 

procrams. LDF has local committees in a number of cities which 

hold events to raise money for it. The participants understand 

- more - 



=o 

clearly what LDF is and has done. Foundations have also been a 

major source of support. Among the most sophisticated institutions 

in American philanthropy, they know very well what LDF is and what 

it does. In connection with its forthcoming 40th anniversary LDF 

has launched a major campaign to seek suppert from business 

corporations. The anniversary campaign has brought LDF some sub- 

stantial financial support from the corporate world for the first 

time -- although a few major corporations have been supporting LDF 

for years. John Filer, Chairman of Aetna Life and Casualty heads 

the 40th Anniversary Campaign, and John Riccardo, Chairman of the 

Chrysler Corporation heads LDF's corporate campaign. Corporaticns, 

obviously know the objects of their giving. 

Many large donors, particularly foundations and corporations, 

have for years supported both the NAACP and the LDF with separats 

grants. This is true of such foundations as the Ford Foundation, 

Carnegie Corporaticn, Rockefeller Foundaticn, etc. and corporations 

like General Motors, Ford and Chrysler. The distinction between 

LDF and the NAACP is well known to ali such doncrs. B 

O£ course, giving to civil rights causes reflects general 

attitudes as well as particular appeals. We have 

variety of factors, including activities of other ° 

(among which are NAACP, Urban League, SCLC anc others) cont. 

to forming those attitudes. 

LDF became aware, over a dozen vears ago, that some NAACP? 

officials thought that gifts intended for the Asscciation were 

going to LDF. .To make certain that there will be no confusion, 

all LDF stationary and literature has for years carried statements 

at LDF is a separate organization and not part of the NAACP. 

accounting procedures insure that any gift earmarked for the 

I cwarded to the NAACD or in the event 

c= more complex trensacticns is returned to the 

tien abou ee
 



= 10° = 

The sources of LDF's 1978 income by category are approximately 

as follows: 

Individuals 43.6 % 
Foundations 29.8 
Corporations 11.3 
Bequests 1.6 
Court Awarded Fees tak 
Interest & Dividends 126 f 

= 100 $ 

LDF competes with the NAACP for public support only in the 

same sense that it competes with other civil rights organizations 

such as the Urban League, or other groups supporting Black educa- 

tion, such as the United Negro College Fund. Our experience is 

that donors are informed and perceptive and select wisely the 

objects of their philanthropy. Many give to several of -the civil 

rights or related groups. LDF seeks to promote public understanding 

of its separate identity and to obtain funds on the merits of its 

own progrems. LDF fund raising appeals are always based on LDF 

programs and are not based on criticism of other groups. 

APRIL 1979 



FACTS ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE 
N.A.A.C.P. LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL 
FUND, INC. (LDF) AND THE NATIONAL ASSO- 
CIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED 

PEOPLE (NAACP) 

Recent news accounts relating to the NAACP Legal Defense 

Fund's plan to observe the 25th anniversary of the United States 

Supreme Court's decision outlawing racial segregation in Brown v. 

Board of Education have caused the press and public to ask us 

questions about the relations between LDF and the NAACP. LDF has 

prepared this fact sheet to answer some of the common questions. 

QUESTIONS 

Ae What is LDF? Who founded it? When did it begin operations? 

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. -- commonly 

called LDF -- is now 39 years old. It was incorporated in New York 

on March 20, 1940 by seven people who were then leaders of the NAACP. 

Its charter stated that its purpose was to render free legal aid to 

"Negroes ... who are suffering legal injustice by reason of race cr 

color" and who were "unable to employ counsel on account of poverty." 

Its purposes from the beginning also included an object "to seek and 

promote the educational facilities for Negroes who are denied the 

same by reason of race or color." 

The seven founders of LDF included long-time NAACP President 

Arthur B. Spingarn, who became LDF's first President, Dr. William 

A. Neilson, Judge William H. Hastie, New York Governor Herbert H. 

Lehman, Judge Charles E. Toney, Judge Hubert T. Delany, and Marv 

White Ovington, one of the group who founded the NAACP in 1909. 

The LDF was granted a tax exemption by the Internal Revenue 

Service and began operations in 1940. Thurgood Marshall was chosen 

as LDF's first counsel and the late Frank D. Reeves was employed as 

his legal research assistant. The late NAACP Executive Secretary 

Walter White was elected secretary of LDF and Roy Wilkins was 

assistant secretary. 



2s Who are the present leaders of LDF? 

The LDF has had only two executive directors (the title is 

"Director-Counsel") in its 39 year history: Thurgood Marshall from 

1940-1961, and Jack Greenberg from 1961 to date. Jack Greenberg, 

one of the lawyers who argued Brown, has worked at LDF for 30 years. 

The Chairman of LDF's board of directors is William T. Coleman, Jr. . 

(former Secretary of Transportation), who began working on the 

Brown case with Thurgood Marshall in 1950 and who has served on 

LDF's board for 22 years. LDF's President is Julius LeVonne Chambers 

whose association with LDF began in 1961 when he was one of the 

first two participants in the LDF civil rights legal internship 

program. LDF's Vice President, Wiley A. Branton (Dean of Howard Law 

School) has been connected with the organization since he was counsel 

in the Little Rock school case beginning in 1956. LDF's Treasurer 

Lois Cowles has served as Treasurer since 1957; she has been a 

board member since 1952. LDF Secretaries George D. Cannon and 

Constance S. Lindau have been on the board since 1947 and 1961, 

respectively. LDF's Associate Counsel James M. Nabrit, III has been 

a lawyer at the Fund since 1959 and Associate Counsel since 1965. 

LDF's Board of Directors of about 75 people is an interracial group 

representing a broad spectrum of American life; by policy slightly 

over half of the group are lawyers. A list is attached. LDF has an 

interracial staff of 106, including 22 lawyers in offices in New 

York and Washington, D.C. In addition LDF works with a network of 

several hundred cooperating lawyers including 89 lawyers who have 

participated in four-year LDF internship and fellowship programs. 

Ze What was the relation between NAACP and LDF in the early years? 

From its beginning in 1940 LDF has been a separate corporation 

with its own separate funds and board of directors. However, from 

1941 to 1952 LDF staff rented offices in the NAACP national head- 

quarters, and a few staff members served both organizations. As the 

LDF gradually gained financial support Thurgood Marshall was able to 

employ additional lawyers, and staff, and by 1953 Thurgood Marshall 

- more - 



and the LDF staff moved to a separate LDF office on West 43rd 

Street in New York, about three blocks from the NAACP national 

office. By 1953 LDF received annual contributions of slightly 

more than a quarter million dollars. 

4.- What was the role of LDF in the case of Brown v. Board of 
Education and the other four school segregation cases decided 
in 1954? Does LDF claim credit for the cases to the exclusion 
of others? 

LDF salaried stafi lawyers orally argued four of the five -cases 

decided by the Supreme Court on May 17, 1954. Director-Counsel 

Thurgood Marshall argued the South Carolina case. His first assis- 

tant counsel at LDF Robert Carter (now U.S. District Judge in the 

Southern District of New York) argued the Topeka, Kansas case. 

Jack Greenberg, the present LDF Director-Counsel argued the Delaware 

case, sharing the argument with Louis L. Redding who was LDF's 

cooperating attorney from Wilmington. Spottswood W. Robinson, III 

(now Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit) who was then LDF's regional counsel in the southeast, argued 

the Virginia case. The District of Columbia case, Bolling v. Sharpe, 

was argued by Dr. James M. Nabrit, Jr., President Emeritus of Howard 

University, who was then a member of the Howard University Law 

faculty, and by the late George E. C. Hayes of Washington, D.C. 

Although Dr. Nabrit has been a member of LDF's board for many years, 

the District of Columbia case was not regarded as an LDF case or an 

NAACP case at the time of Brown. Many other lawyers worked on the 

trials, appeals and briefs in the cases._/ Some were connected with 

37 The lawyers on the brief in Brown, in addition to the lawyers 
Tisted in the text who made oral argument, were: Oliver W. Hill, 
Harold Boulware, Charles L. Black, Jr., Louis H. Pollak, Charles S. 
Scott, John Scott, Charles T. Duncan, Herbert O. Reid, Elwood H. 
Chisholm, Loren Miller, William R. Ming, Jr., Constance Baker Mctley, 

David E. Pinsky, Frank D. Reeves and Jack B. Weinstein. 

- more - 



NAACP branches while others were not. But the acknowledged leader 

of the legal activity was Thurgood Marshall and the center of the 
work was the LDF office on West 43rd Street in New York. All of 

the expenses of the Brown cases, for briefs, records, printing, 

travel, experts and so forth were paid by LDF. 

The legal effort leading to Brown began in 1929 with a grant 

by the American Fund for Public Service to the NAACP which led to 

writing the Margold Report, a blueprint for ending segregation 

through courtroom action. A campaign was mapped out in the early 

thirties, led by Charles H. Houston, William H. Hastie and Thurgood 

Marshall to develop and implement the proposals of that report. 

The NAACP Legal Defense Fund was formed, in large part, to imple- 

Ment that effort. The NAACP is further linked with Brown in that 

in éach of the cases except the District of Columbia case, the 

plaintiffs who were represented in court by the LDF lawyers were 

associated with local branches of the NAACP. LDF acknowledges 

that the school cases would not have been possible without the 

heroism and sacrifice of the clients and other community leaders, 

many of them officials of the NAACP, who risked everything to fight 

against discrimination. LDF honors these leaders, and has done so 

at its annual celebrations of the Brown decision for Many years. 

LDF is proud of its own role in the cases but does not in the 

least disparage the accomplishments of others. The story of the re- 

markable efforts of both laymen and lawyers which led to the abolition 

of legalized segregation is told in Richard Kluger's SIMPLE JUSTICE, 

which is now also available in a paperback edition. LDF is happy to 

leave to historians and others the task of appraising the relative 

contributions of those who participated in the cases. In an essay 

written for inclusion in a forthcoming booklet being prepared for 

the 25th Anniversary of the Brown decision Richard Kluger called the 

Brown case an LDF victory: 

"On December 9, 1952, in the waning days of the 
presidency of Harry Truman, fifty-six years after 
‘equal but separate': segregation was approved in 
Plessy v. Ferguson, ninety years after the Emanicipa- 

- more- 



tion Proclamation, 163 years after the ratification 
of the Constitution, and 333 years after the first 
African slave was known to have been brought to the 
shores of the New World, the Supreme Court convened 
to hear arguments on whether the white people of the 
United States might continue to treat the black 
people as their subjects. 

“Another year and a half would pass before the 
Justices decided Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 
the climax of a legal crusade more than two decades in 
the making._ The decisive battle, won by a small com- 
pany of mostly black attorneys under the flag of the 
NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Inc., turned May 17, 1954, 
into a milestone in American history."*/ 

We do not, by quoting this passage, wish to suggest that Mr. 

Kluger, any more than LDF, would deny credit to the NAACP for its 

own important role in the Brown case. 

5. What has LDF done to enforce the Brown decision? 

LDF has maintained a vigorous litigation program to enforce the 

Brown decision in the courts. It has brought hundreds of suits against 

local school districts, as well as cases to enforce the decision in 

segregated universities. Since Brown, LDF lawyers have handled the 

major cases involving school integration decided by the United 

States Supreme Court including: Cooper v. Aaron (1958) involving 

Little Rock, Arkansas; Goss v. Board of Education of Knoxville, Tenn. 

(1963) involving pupil transfer rules; Bradley v. School Board of 

Richmond (1965) faculty segregation held unlawful; Green v. County 

School Board (1968), establishing the affirmative duty of school 

boards to integrate schools; Alexander v. Holmes County Board of 

Education (1969) ending the "all deliberate speed" doctrine and order- 

ing immediate compliance with Brown; Swann v. Charlotte-Meckenburg 

Board of Education (1971) approving bus transportation as a remedial 

device in school integration plans: Keyes v. School District No. 1, 

Denver, Colo. (1973), the first non-southern school district where 

si, The complete text of Kluger's essay is being made available 
with this press release. However, it should not be reprinted or 
extensively quoted without permission prior to its publicaticn. 

- more: 



the Supreme Court ordered systemwide desegregation. LDF also 

handled cases to integrate the Universities of Mississippi (the 

Meredith case), Alabama (where George Wallace stood in the school- 

house door), Louisiana, Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, South 

Carolina, Tennessee, and elsewhere. 

Brown led to the demonstrations of the '60's and LDF rep- 

resented Dr. Martin Luther King (in the Selma to Montgomery march, 

in Birmingham and elsewhere) and all the other non-violent groups, 

winning over 40 Supreme Court cases. Roy Wilkins, NAACP Executive 

Director, played a pivotal role in translating the national mood 

into national political consensus. 

When the Civil Rights Acts of the mid-sixties were passed, LDF 

led in implementing their provisions involving public accommodations, 

employment, housing, voting and education in hundreds of lawsuits. 

LDF also has brought cases involving prisoners' rights and capital 

punishment in which racial discrimination has played so important a 

part. No organization, not even the Department of Justice, has 

brought more leading cases in these areas than LDF. Everyone ack- 

nowledges the NAACP's leadership and the brilliance of Clarence 

Mitchell, its former Washington Bureau Chief, in securing passage 

of the Civil Rights Act. 

LDF's Earl Warren Legal Training Program, and the Herbert Lehman 

Education Fund have provided scholarships totaling almost $2.5 million 

to 1121 students in 71 accredited law schools in 30 states and the 

District of Columbia. 

6. Has LDF regularly celebrated the anniversary of Brown? 

LDF has had annual luncheons or dinners since the mid-1960's 

to mark the anniversary of Brown attended by thousands of people 

who have heard speeches by distinguished leaders including Chief 

Justice Earl Warren, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Senator Robert 

F. Kennedy, Senator Edward Kennedy, Senator Walter Mondale, Attorney 

General Ramsey Clark, Columnist Carl Rowan, etc. The speaker 

at this year's 25th Anniversary dinner will be Howard University 

- more - 



ats 

Law School Dean Wiley A. Branton. Howard University, of course, was 

where much of the planning for the Brown case took place. 

ie What is the present relationship between LDF and the NAACP? 

How has it changed over the years? 

In 1956 and 1957 LDF's tax exemption was challenged by Southern 

politicians opposed to school integration. They claimed that LDF 

had too close a relationship with the NAACP, which engaged in lobby- 

ing and political activities which were at that time prohibited for 

tax exempt organizations. This attack was launched during the era 

of massive resistance when Alabama, Texas and Virginia were also 

engaged in efforts to destroy both the NAACP and LDF. In fact 

Alabama succeeded in putting the NAACP out of business in that state 

for several years with a court injunction. Because of its separation 

LDF was able to continue to function in Alabama, handling cases for 

Martin Luther King, Jr. and other civil rights groups. In May 1957, 

after an extended negotiation with the Internal Revenue Service, 

LDF reorganized its Board of Directors with a resolution which pro- 

vided that no directors would serve on both the board of LDF and the 

NAACP, and that no employees would work on both staffs. After this 

reorganization the IRS investigation of LDF continued for several 

years, but the strong threat to withdraw LDF's tax exemption ended. 

Since 1957 the LDF and NAACP have functioned without any overlap of 

board and staff positions. Board, budget, staff and program of both 

organizations are completely separate. However, LDF lawyers have 

worked in cooperation with NAACP branches in a large number of cases 

since -1957, and LDF has also represented many people affiliated with 

other civil rights groups. For example, in the 1960's, LDF repre- 

sented Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Southern Christian Leader- 

ship Conference.in many cases, represented the Congress of Racial 

Equality (CORE) in the Freedom Rides, and the Student Non-Violent 

Coordinating Committee (SNCC) in many voter registration demonstra- 

tions. LDF recently filed briefs with the National Urban League, 

Howard University Law School and the United Auto Workers Union. 

= more = 



gos 

LDF has represented Gary, Indiana Mayor Richard Hatcher in a case 

involving discrimination in hospital service and the City of Detroit 

in a case involving affirmative action. LDF lawyers, however, 

typically represent citizens affiliated with no civil rights 

groups. 

Although LDF has no continuing affiliation with the NAACP, it 

has no policies opposed to the Association. LDF is not aware of 

any significant civil rights issue on which it has adopted a 

position opposed to that adopted by the NAACP. Both organizations 

have maintained a position of vigorous support of school integration. 

At the NAACP's request LDF recently filed a brief in support of the 

NAACP's position in the Dayton and Columbus school cases. 

The NAACP in the late 1960's established the NAACP Special 

Contribution Fund, which now provides a tax exempt fund for the 

support of the NAACP's work. The NAACP has maintained its own legal 

staff under the direction of its General Counsel, and that staff has 

handled a variety of civil rights matters in the courts, including 

a number of important school segregation cases in the North, such 

as the Boston, Detroit, Dayton and Columbus school cases. The 

official policy of the LDF Board is one of offering to cooperate 

with the NAACP on civil rights issues, and to urge the public to 

support both organizations. 

8. Where does LDF get its money? Does it compete with the NAACP 
for funds? 

LDF has approximately 60,000 contributors who in 1978 gave a 

total of $4.3 million to support the program. LDF's fund raising 

efforts are diversified. Over the years millions of pieces of mail 

seeking contributions have been mailed by "The Committee of 100" 

in support of LDF. These mailings solicit support for particular 

programs. LDF has local committees in a number of cities which 

hold events to raise money for it. The participants understand 

- more - 



clearly what LDF is and has done. Foundations have also been a 

major source of support. Among the most sophisticated institutions 

in American philanthropy, they know very well what LDF is and what 

it does. In connection with its forthcoming 40th anniversary LDF 

has launched a major campaign to seek support from business 

corporations. The anniversary campaign has brought LDF some sub- 

stantial financial support from the corporate world for the first 

time -- although a few major corporations have been supporting LDF 

for years. John Filer, Chairman of Aetna Life and Casualty heads 

the 40th Anniversary Campaign, and John Riccardo, Chairman of the 

Chrysler Corporation heads LDF's corporate campaign. Corporations, 

obviously know the objects of their giving. 

Many large donors, particularly foundations and corporations, 

have for years supported both the NAACP and the LDF with separate 

grants. This is true of such foundations as the Ford Foundation, 

Carnegie Corporation, Rockefeller Foundation, etc. and corporations 

like General Motors, Ford and Chrysler. The distinction between 

LDF and the NAACP is well known to all such donors. 

Of course, giving to civil rights causes reflects generai 

attitudes as well as particular appeals. We have no doubt that a 

variety of factors, including activities of other organizations 

(among which are NAACP, Urban League, SCLC and others) contribute 

to forming those attitudes. 

LDF became aware, over a dozen years ago, that some NAACP 

officials thought that gifts intended for the Association were 

going to LDF. .To make certain that there will be no confusion, 

all LDF stationary and literature has for years carried statements 

that LDF is a separate organization and not part of the NAACP. 

LDF accounting procedures insure that any gift earmarked for the 

NAACP but mailed to LDF is forwarded to the NAACP or in the even 

of more complex transactions is returned to the donor with inf 

tion about the NAACP's correct address. 

- more - 



=) 160 = 

The sources of LDF's 1978 income by category are approximately 

as follows: 

Individuals 43.6 % 
Foundations 29.8 
Corporations did 3 
Bequests 1.6 

Court Awarded Fees Jed 
Interest & Dividends 1.6 

x 100 $ 

LDF competes with the NAACP for public support only in the 

same sense that it competes with other civil rights organizations 

such as the Urban League, or other groups supporting Black educa- 

tion, such as the United Negro College Fund. Our experience is 

that donors are informed and perceptive and select wisely the 

objects of their philanthropy. Many give to several of -the civil 

rights or related groups. LDF seeks to promote public understanding 

of its separate identity and to obtain funds on the merits of its 

own programs. LDF fund raising appeals are always based on LDF 

programs and are not based on criticism of other groups. 

APRIL 1979 



wee 

Statement by Jack Greenberg, director-counsel, 
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 
March 10, 1969 

RE: Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 

The decision in this case is a posthumous vindication of 

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Birmingham demonstrations which 

led to passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is 

Rev. Shuttlesworth's ninth case decided in the Supreme Court of 

the United States. LDF attorneys have provided representation in 

six of the nine cases, including today's. All told, this is a 

vivid demonstration of the great effort which must go into 

protecting the rights of dissidents in the Deep South.