Jackson v. Rawdon Appellees' Brief
Public Court Documents
May 1, 1956

Cite this item
-
Press Releases, Loose Pages. Supreme Court Rejects Legal Defende Permission to File as Amicus Curiae in Employer Case, 1953. 9819b2b9-bb92-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/dfb9e030-ea74-4085-8a01-a043b852a273/supreme-court-rejects-legal-defende-permission-to-file-as-amicus-curiae-in-employer-case. Accessed August 19, 2025.
Copied!
PRESS RELEASE NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 107 WEST 43 STREET * NEW YORK 36, N. Y. © JUdson 6-8397 THURGOOD MARSHALL ells oxo L eae Director and Counsel ROBERT L, CARTER WALTER WHITE howe cons ALLAN KNIGHT CHALMERS ARNOLD DE MILLE Treasurer Press Relations FOR RELEASE: April 16, 1953 SUPREME COURT REJECTS LEGAL DEFENSE PERMISSION TO FILE AS AMICUS CURIAE IN EMPLOYER CASE April 13, 1953 WASHINGTON, D.C., April 13.-- The United States Supreme Court today denied the request of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund for permission to file a brief as amicus curiae (friends of the court) in a case which involved the right of an employer to discrimi- nate against a worker because of race, religion, national origin or non-union membership. The case was that of the Gaynor News Company vs. the National Labor Relations Board, in which an employer is asking the U. S. Supreme Court to reverse a lower court's ruling which declared it an unfair labor practice for it to deprive non-union workers of benefits given to union members, In making the request for permission to appear as amicus curiae in the case, Thurgood Marshall, Legal Defense and Educational Fund counsel and director, and Jack Greenberg, assistant counsel, had pointed out that while racial discrimination did not appear to be involved in the case, certain legal principles might be determined by the high court's decision, principles which might "immediately affect the rights of Negroes and other minorities in their quest for equal employment." In its motion, NAACP Legal Defense attorneys stated that in their belief the briefs filed with the Supreme Court would not adequately present the facts as they would bear "upon the status of Negro and other minority group workers." "In many situations in which a labor union is the collective bargaining agent, Negroes and other minority groups are excluded from membership solely because of race, religion or national origin," they pointed out. The attorneys claimed that if an employer is given the right to discriminate against a worker because of non-union membership, then Negroes and other minority groups will be deprived of the right to + legal Defense and Educational Fund Press ee 16 Page 2 file unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board and will therefore be deprived of equal employment opportunity. The Gaynor News Company had first refused the Legal Defense Fund permission to file in connection with the case. Refusal by the Supreme Court means that NAACP attorneys will not be able to participate in the case in any capacity. RESTRICTIVE COVENANT APPEAL BEFORE SUPREME COURT April 16, 1953 WASHINGTON, D.C., April 16,-- The question as to whether a person has the right to go into court and to sue and recover money damages from another who failed to live up to a race restrictive covenant or "con- tract" will be argued before the United States Supreme Court Tuesday, April 28, Attorney for the National Association for the Advancement of Color- ed People, Loren Miller of Los Angeles, who has successfully argued several other restrictive covenant cases, will argue that a court's awarding of damages for breach of restrictive covenant clauses or con- tracts deprives a person of his constitutional rights and is in complete violation of the l4th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The case, entitled Barrow, et al, vs. Jackson, involves Mrs. Leona Jackson, a white resident of a Southern California community, who in 1950 sold a house to persons she allegedly knew would let Negroes occupy it. In the deed Mrs, Jackson refused to include a racial restrictive clause, which would restrict the occupancy of the house to "Caucasians" only. The parties who had signed the restrictive "contract" with Mrs, Jackson sued her for damages in the California Superior Court. The case was dismissed and on appeal both the California District Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court upheld the earlier decision. In the brief filed with the United States Supreme Court, Mr. Miller has called upon the high court to settle this question as to whether one has the right to recover damages against a person who sells his property to a member of another racial group in violation of a covenant. He pointed out that California, Michigan and Washington, D.C. have ruled that a person cannot do so, while Oklahoma and Missouri have upheld the right of their courts to entertain damage actions of this kind. "The Fourteenth Amendment does not proscribe individual action," says Mr, Miller in quoting the California court, "but when, as here, the aid of a court is sought to compel one of the parties to the restrictive covenant to abide by its terms by subjecting him to an action for ~ Legal Defense and Educational Fund Press ge eo 16 Page 3 damages because of the use or occupancy of the property by non- Causians--it is no longer a matter of individual action: it is one of State participation in the maintenance of racial residential segre- gation." Attorney Miller will be assisted by Thurgood Marshall, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund counsel and director, and Franklin H, Williams, West Coast regional director. FLORIDA SUPREME COURT HEARS 2ND IRVIN APPEAL April 14,1953 TALLAHASSEE, Fla., April 14.-- Arguments in the appeal of the second conviction of Walter Lee Irvin, sole surviving defendant in the famous Groveland case, were heard today by the Florida Supreme Court. Presenting the argument for Irvin, twice convicted for the raping of a white farmwife, were NAACP attorneys Thurgood Marshall, the Associa- tion's special counsel of New York City, Jack Greenberg, also of New York, Alex Akerman and Paul Perkins, both of Orlando, Fla. Hearing on the appeal was twice postponed because of a hip injury suffered by Attorney Akerman. It was first scheduled for January 27, but when Mr. Akerman slipped and fell while getting off the plane on his way to the courthouse, it was put off until February 17. The second postponement was requested because the NAACP lawyer had not recovered sufficiently to keep the date. Irvin was first sentenced to death in 1949 when he, Samuel Shepherd and Charles Greenlee were convicted for reaping the Groveland farmwife. Shepherd was also given a death sentence. Greenlee, then 16, was sent to prison for life. He did not appeal and is now in the state penitentiary. A fourth Negro, Ernest Thomas, was shot to death by a sheriff's posse before he ever reached a courtroom. The conviction and death sentence of Irvin and Shepherd were taken to the United States Supreme Court by the NAACP. In April, 1951, the high court ordered a new trial, Justice Robert H. Jackson, in his concurring opinion, stated that the events surrounding the first trial did not "meet any civilized conception of due process of law." On the eve of the new trial, in November, 1951, Irvin and Shepherd were shot down in the middle of the night on a lonely road by the sheriff while he was transporting the two men from the state penitentiary to the site of the new trial, Shepherd was killed and 6. Legal Defense and a ey Fund Press rede wer 16 Page 4 Irvin seriously injured. The second trial was held in Ocala early in 1952, After one hour and twenty-three minutes deliberation, the all-white jury brought back a "guilty" verdict and Walter Lee Irvin was again sentenced to death by Judge T. J. Futch. In their argument before the Florida Supreme Court, the NAACP attorneys cited twenty-two errors committed by the lower court in convicting and sentencing Irvin. Most glaring were the refusal of the trial court to admit into evidence a public opinion poll showing prejudice against Irvin in the county of the trial, the refusal of the trial court to order a mistrial after the State's Attorney had made prejudicial remarks to the jury, and the introduction into evidence of articles seized without a search warrant. A decision is not expected to be handed down for at least several weeks. =30=