The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals was informed today…
Press Release
Cite this item
-
Press Releases, Loose Pages. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals was informed today…, 385b4275-bc92-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/53af6c51-1173-4955-be49-d5c07209e0f6/the-eighth-circuit-court-of-appeals-was-informed-today. Accessed November 23, 2025.
Copied!
- PRESS RELEASE @ ®
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
10 COLUMBUS CIRCLE * NEW YORK 19,N.Y. © JUdson 6-8397
DR. ALLAN KNIGHT CHALMERS oa THURGOOD MARSHALL
President Director-Counsel
ST. LOUIS, MO., July ea Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
was informed today that District Judge Harry J. Lemley erred in
granting the Little Rock School Board permission to postpone desegre-
gation for 24 years.
The court was advised that Judge Lemleydid not have sufficient
evidence and had no power to suspend, postpone or rescind the 1956
decree approving the plan of gradual integration which was later
affirmed by the Eighth Circuit,
These contentions were presented in a brief filed here today
with the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals by Thurgood Marshall and
Wiley A, Branton in support of the appeal to have Judge Lemleyts
order of Jung 20 set aside,
The attorneys for the Negro students who attended the Little
Rock Central High School made three basic points: One is that com=
munity opposition to integration, even if expressed through overt
acts of trespass and intimidation, "does not constitute a legally
sufficient ground for suspending the operation of a plan for gradual
racial integration of public schools heretofore approved by the
District Court and by this Court,"
"Placing a premium on opposition to public school desegregation
by illegal means rather than by democratic methods can only result
in encouraging lawless elements opposing compliance.,.and frustrating
those seeking compliance in a lawful manner," they argue. In short,
preventing racial tension or conflict is no ground for deprivation of
constitutional rights,
The second point made by the attorneys is that "the District
Court had no power to suspend, postpone or rescind the decree approv~
ing appelleest plan of gradual integration efter affirmance by this
court on appeal,"
ou
w
ise
Here they point out that once a higher court affirms a decree a
lower court cannot change that decree without getting permission from
the higher court to modify it. Therefore, Judge Lemley had no author-
ity to grant the Little Rock School Board's request for postponement,
the attorneys argue.
The last point made in the brief is that "aside from the lack
of constitutional authority for the lower court's order, its effect
as a precedent will be disastrous to our whole concept of constitu-
tional government,"
The attorneys conclude that it is clear that the possibility of
"a genuine danger of violence and civil commotion" cannot be used as
a basis for interrupting the plan of integration. Following Judge
Lemley's refusal on June 23 to grant a stay of his postponement order,
attorneys Marshall and Branton appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court
on June 2; for a stay of the order.
However, since that court was in summer recess, on June 26 the
attorneys filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U. S.
Supreme Court to review Judge Lemley's order before judgment of the
Court of Appeals. The petition was denied on June 30. However, the
Supreme Court stated: "We have no doubt that the Court of Appeals
will recognize the vital importance of the time element in this liti-
gation and that it will act upon the application for a stay or the
appeal in ample time to permit arrangements to be made for the next
school year,"
Arguments before the appellate court is scheduled to begin on
August in St. Louis.
Other attorneys who appear on the brief filed on behalf of the
Negro students are Irma Robbins Feder, Constance Baker Motley and
Elwood H. Chisolm, all of New York, and Spottswood W, Robinson of
Richmond, Va.
= 30 =