Haney v. Sevier County Board of Education Reply Brief for Appellants
Public Court Documents
January 1, 1969

Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Haney v. Sevier County Board of Education Reply Brief for Appellants, 1969. bfa7df5e-b59a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/7775f8bf-3131-44b5-8bbb-66180cd794fa/haney-v-sevier-county-board-of-education-reply-brief-for-appellants. Accessed July 09, 2025.
Copied!
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO. 19,899 LELA MAE HANEY, et al., Appellants, vs. COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SEVIER COUNTY, et al.. Appellees. Appeal from the united States District Court for the western District of Arkansas Texarkana Division REPLY BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS JOHN W. WALKER PHILIP E. KAPLAN JOHN T. LAVEY WALKER, ROTENBERRY, KAPLAN, LAVEY & HOLLINGSWORTH 1820 West Thirteenth Street JACK GREENBERG NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 Attorneys for Appellants IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO. 19, 899 LELA MAS HANEY, et al.. Appellants, vs. COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SEVIER COUNTY, et al., Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the western District of Arkansas Texarkana Division REPLY BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS There is little which needs reply in the brief of Lockesburg School District No. 16 because it fails to confront the issues which are presented to this court for decision. We file this Reply Brief only to make clear the total absence of any justification for the plan adopted by the district court. As we pointed out in our main brief this plan was almost exactly that proposed by the white Lockesburg School District. We find it facially discriminatory but appellees did not advance any non-racial justification in their brief. Furthermore, appellees completely failed to confront the applicable precedent we cited. There is nothing in Louisiana v. United States, 380 UoS. 145 (1965) which in any-•.waysupports the proposition for which appellees cite:, it on page 3. Nor can appellees convincingly distinguish Fe.lder v. Ilarnsfrt County Bd. of Ednc., 409 F.2d 1070 (4th Cir. 1969). The Court of Appeals in that case was commenting upon the various defects of the plan submitted by the school board. It is true, as appellees state, that one of the defects noted by the Court of Appeals was the lack of any specific assignment methods to achieve integration. However, the plan did specifically propose the closing of black schools, a measure which the Court also found discriminatory since no non-racial reason for this move was put forth. It was in connection with this observation that we cited the Felder case in our brief. Finally, a rereading of Brice v. Landis, Civil No. 51805 (N.D. Cal., August 8, 1959) strengthens > our conviction that the law annunciated by the district judge is totally applicable to the situation in Sevier County. Appellees’ brief requires no further comment and in order to avoid being redundant we will not reargue any part of our original brief. We do note that our contention at page 12 of our brief concerning the . m'obiv ation of the black Sevier County School District in opposing consolidation is confirmed by Mr. Hainen’s - 2 - letter to this court of November 4, 1969 announcing that the school district will not participate in this appeal. Appellants respectfully pray that the relief requested in their original brief be granted. Respectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER PHILIP E. KAPLAN JOHN T. LAVEY WALKER, ROTENBERRY, KAPLAN, LAVEY & HOLLINGSWORTH 1820 West Thirteenth Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 JACK GREENBERG NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 Attorneys for Appellants