LDF Asks Supreme Court to Reverse Ala. Decision Against Rev. Shuttlesworth
Press Release
March 7, 1968

Cite this item
-
Press Releases, Volume 5. LDF Asks Supreme Court to Reverse Ala. Decision Against Rev. Shuttlesworth, 1968. 24dc5582-b892-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/658efcb6-2d9a-4ddc-850c-1dd1e25b707e/ldf-asks-supreme-court-to-reverse-ala-decision-against-rev-shuttlesworth. Accessed April 27, 2025.
Copied!
President Hon. Francis E. Rivers PRESS RELEASE Director Counsel egal efense hand Jack Greenberg NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. dela es tecesecras 10 Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y. 10019 * JUdson 6-8397 NIGHT NUMBER 212-749-8487 o/ FOR RELEASE ge THURSDAY March 7, 1968 LDF ASKS SUPREME COURT TO REVERSE ALA. DECISION AGAINST REV. SHUTTLESWORTH 1,500 Other Demonstrators Also Affected | WASHINGTON---The U.S. Supreme Court was asked today to review and | reverse an Alabama Supreme Court ruling against the Rev. Fred L. | Shuttlesworth. The Court was asked to decide whether Rev. Shuttlesworth and 1500 Birmingham civil rights demonstrators can be convicted for parading without a permit for their Easter week marches of 1963 in Birmingham. Attorneys of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. | (LDF) argue that Rev. Shuttlesworth did not have to secure a permit because the parade ordinance on its face violated the Constitution. Rev. Shuttlesworth, the LDF argues, was entitled to ignore the permit requirement “because its grant of overbroad discretionary licensing power rendered it patently offensive to the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” Moreover, the attorneys add, if he had applied for a permit and it had been denied,"there were no Alabama procedures for effective and timely administrative decision-making and judicial review." Finally, it is argued, the ordinance speaks of “parade” on the "streets." There was no way Rev. Shuttlesworth could have known that he needed a permit to lead 52 persons on a walk on the sidewalks. | The attorneys point out that Rev. Shuttlesworth is a “notorious person in the field of civil rights in Birmingham." | The lawyers note that the “attitude of the city administration | in general and the police commissioner in particular” was hostile | towards Rev. Shuttlesworth and his activities. | Prior to the Negro protest demonstrations in the spring of 1963, Birmingham officials did not issue permits for walking on the side- walk. “The police did not usually arrest persons for walking on the sidewalks; when they did, the courts did not sustain such con- victions," the LDF attorneys argue. LDF attorneys predict that Birmingham “football fans on their way to the stadium without a parade permit risk prosecution under ordinance 1159, should city authorities choose so vigorously to protect the sidewalks of Birmingham.” Attorneys in the case are Director-C 1 Jack Gr g James M. Nabrit III, Norman C. Amaker, Charles Stephen Ralston and Melvyn Zarr of New York City; Anthony G. Amsterdam of Phila- delphia; and Arthur D. Shores and Orzell Billingsley, Jr. of Birmingham. ’ | . -30- NOTE: The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) is a separate and distinct organization from the NAACP. Its correct designation is NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., which is shortened to LDF. 25