Arthur v. Starrett City Associates Comments of the United States as Amicus Curiae on the Proposed Consent Decree

Public Court Documents
June 28, 1984

Cite this item

Arthur v. Starrett City Associates Comments of the United States as Amicus Curiae on the Proposed Consent Decree preview

Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.

Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:

For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):

Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.

LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.

If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.

NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.

Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.

I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.

If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at

Collection
- Brief Collection
Taxonomy
Identifier
- d239b666-ba9a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873

Cite this item

Press Releases, Volume 5. Six Southern States Lose School Integration Fight, 1967. ce3b382d-b892-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/60b52072-c245-453b-a571-cac32925614e/six-southern-states-lose-school-integration-fight. Accessed August 19, 2025.

Copied!

President
Hon. Francis E. Rivers

PRESS RELEASE Director-Counsel

egal efense und Jock Greenberg |
S' = ee }

irector, Public Relations

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. Jesse DeVore, Jr.
10 Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y. 10019 * JUdson 68397 FOR RELEASE NIGHT NUMBER 212-749-8487

FRIDAY

y¥ OCTOBER 13, 1967

SIX SOUTHERN STATES LOSE |

SCHOOL INTEGRATION FIGHT |

U.S. Supreme Court Backs Up Lower Court LDF Ruling

WASHINGTON---Responding to the U.S. Supreme Court's action this week--=

allowing accelerated southern school integration---the NAACP Legal De-

fense and Educational Fund, Inc. announced a step-up of litigation in

nearly 200 cases.

The ruling, in effect, calls for top to bottom school integration in

six deep southern states.

The high court refused to review the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
ruling affecting nine crucial school integration cases.

Under the Appeals Court decision in the Caddo Parish group of cases,

"a desegregation plan must work, must abolish the dual school system

and the identifiable Negro school," said LDF Director-Counsel Jack

Greenberg.

This is "the most influential school desegregation opinion since the
Supreme Court's 1954 school ruling," Mr. Greenberg added.

The nine cases---of which six were brought by LDF attorneys---contained

the underlying issue of the pace and extent of school integration across |
the south, and acceptance of the U.S. Department of Health, Education

and Welfare guidelines.

States affected include Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, Georgia, Mississ-

ippi and Texas.

An array of LDF attorneys led by Associate-Counsel James Nabrit, III
argued the cases on the Appeals Court level.

=30=

Copyright notice

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.

Arthur v. Starrett City Associates Comments of the United States as Amicus Curiae on the Proposed Consent Decree

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in