Hairston v. McLean Trucking Company Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants

Public Court Documents
August 16, 1974

Hairston v. McLean Trucking Company Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellants preview

Cite this item

  • Press Releases, Volume 1. Supreme Court Destroys Jim Crow Ballot in LA; Supreme Court to Hear Atlanta School Cases, 1964. a66809a9-b492-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/40b0095e-fc0c-43af-a210-94deed153abb/supreme-court-destroys-jim-crow-ballot-in-la-supreme-court-to-hear-atlanta-school-cases. Accessed August 19, 2025.

    Copied!

    £V 

APRESS RELEASE ~~ 

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 

DR. ALLAN KNIGHT CHALMERS JACK GREENBERG CONSTANCE BAKER MOTLEY 
President Director-Counsel Associate Counsel 

SUPREME COURT DESTROYS 
JIM CROW BALLOT IN LA. 

January 16, 1964 

WASHINGTCN---The Supreme Court unanimously struck down a Louisiana 
law requiring publication of the race of candidates for public office 
on nomination papers and ballots this week, 

NAACP Legal Defense Fund atterneys, who won the decision, had 
pointed out that "designation as a Negro (in Louisiana) identifies 
the candidate with a group that is.,.by state policy, unfit for 
office," 

Justice Tom Clark, whe wrote the unanimous ruling, concluded 
that "race is a factor upon which the statute operates, and its 
involvement promotes the ultimate discrimination, which is sufficient 
to make it invalid," 

Jack Greenberg, director-counsel ef the Fund said the ruling 
"makes it clear once more that ours is a nation in which Government 
cannot classify citizens according to race, 

"This decision also makes it clear that our constitution is 
colorblind, This Louisiana law is the closest thing we have had to 
the Nazi edict that Jews be required to wear yellow armbands," 

Legal Defense Fund attorneys argued the case in behalf of Dupuy 
H. Anderson and Acie J, Belton, Negro citizens of East Baton Rouge 
parish, 

Both were candidates for nomination to the school board in their 
home parish during the June 8, 1962 Democratic party primary election, 

NAACP Legal Defense Fund attorneys participating in the case 
included Mr. Greenberg, who argued before the Supreme Court, James 
M. Nabrit, III and Johnnie A. Jones who were of counsel, 

= 30 + 

SUPREME COURT TO HEAR 
ATLANTA SCHOOL CASES 

WASHINGTON---The U.S, Supreme Court this week advised the NAACP Legal 
Defense Fund that it will hear arguments on the Atlanta school inte- 
gration cases March 30th. 

Jack Greenberg, the Fund's director-counsel, said the caurt's 
anneuncement "demonstrates its concern with the pace of school de- 
segregation," 

"The cases involve validity of a twelve year plan and a pupil 
assignment plan, Desegregation of teachers is also a major issue, 

"We are grateful for the opportunity to present our arguments 
before the next sehool term," he said. 

Atlanta Negrol parents began petitioning their local school 
authorities for desegregation of that city's public schools in 1955, 
one year after the Supreme Court's Brown decision, ( ) 

ae more 



Supreme Court To Hear 
Atlanta School Cases -2- 

Yet today, “Atlanta's segregated school system is still 
essentially intact," Legal Defense attorneys pointed out in their 
petition to the Supreme Court, 

They added that "Atlanta now has a total public school popu- 
lation of approximately 106,000---about 57,500 whites and 48,000 
Negroes. 

“Although Negroes constitute 45 per cent of the total, they have 
_ been alloted only 33 per cent of the school buildings and 40 per cent 

of the teachers and principals. 

"They also suffer serious overcrowding in certain schools and 
higher pupil-teacher ratios," Legal Defense attorneys stated, 

The lawyers appealed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, 
entered in June of 1963, 

302 é

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.


Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Return to top