Briggs v. Elliot Motion of the American Federation of Teachers for Leave to File Brief as Amicus Curiae

    IN THE

Bnpumt (Emtrl of tfye States
O ctober  T e r m , A. D. 1952.

No. 101

HARRY BRIGGS, JR., et al.

vs.
Appellants,

R. W. ELLIOTT, Chairman, J. D. CARSON, et al., mem­
bers of Board of Trustees of School District No. 22, 
Clarendon County, S. C., et al.

Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 
Eastern District of South Carolina.

MOTION OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF 
TEACHERS FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AS 
AMICUS CURIAE.

S elm a  M. B orchardt, 
Homer Building, 
Washington, D. C., 

Of Counsel.

JOHH LlGTENBERG,
134 N. La Salle St.,
Chicago 2, Illinois,
Counsel for American 

Federation of Teachers,
Amicus Curiae.

C H A M P L IN -S H E A L Y  COMPANY* CHSCASO



IN THE

(Enurt of tlf? States

O ctober  T e r m , A. D. 1952.

No. 101

HARRY BRIGGS, JR., et al.

vs.
Appellants,

R, W. ELLIOTT, Chairman, J. D. CARSON, et al., mem­
bers of Board of Trustees of School District No. 22, 
Clarendon County, S. C., et al.

Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 
Eastern District of South Carolina.

MOTION OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF 
TEACHERS FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AS 
AMICUS CURIAE.

To the Honorable Chief Justice and Associate Justices of 
the Supreme Court of the United States:
The undersigned as counsel for and on behalf of the 

American Federation of Teachers, respectfully move this 
Honorable Court for leave to file the accompanying brief 
as Amicus Curiae.



2

The American Federation of Teachers is an organiza­
tion of more than 350 locals of 60,000 teachers throughout 
the country committed to a policy of ‘ ‘ Democracy in Edu­
cation—Education for Democracy.”  Its membership con­
sists chiefly of classroom teachers who do the actual work 
of teaching the children in the nation’s schools.

In its own affairs it is committed to a practice of com­
plete equality and non-segregation between teachers of 
every race. Its Constitution provides:

"Section 11 (of Article III). No discrimination shall 
ever be shown toward individual members, or appli­
cants for membership because of race # * *.”

It has worked unceasingly throughout its history, and 
with greater intensity in recent years, for the abolition 
of all forms of discrimination and segregation in educa­
tion based on racial differences.

Its members, as shown by the proceedings of its national 
conventions, have repeatedly asserted a fixed opinion that 
segregated school systems are a basic violation of the 
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 
It is, therefore, vitally interested in the issues of this case.

In its brief, if permission to file is given, the Federation 
desires to place before the court the impracticability of the 
"separate but equal”  doctrine. In the seventeen states 
which provide by law for separate schools for white and 
Negro children, the operation of the schools is delegated 
by law to thousands of local school districts. All of these 
districts have a great degree of self government. To en­
force a rule of "separate but equal”  schools throughout 
all these local districts would be impossible and would lead 
to endless litigation. Such litigation and the accompanying 
tensions would deepen the conflict between the racial groups 
rather than lead to equality of opportunity. To expose



3

this aspect of the problem appears to us to demonstrate 
the practical impossibility of enforcing the “ separate but 
equal”  doctrine. It is feared that this point will not be 
adequately considered in the briefs by the parties.

The question presented by this case is whether the segre­
gation of Negro Children in the schools of South Carolina, 
as required by the Constitution and laws of that state, and 
as disclosed by the evidence in this case, violates the 
Fourteenth Amendment. We believe that it does.

It is to present written argument on these practical 
considerations, as well as on the legal and sociological 
aspects of the case that we seek leave to file a brief as 
Amicus Curiae.

Consent of counsel for appellants has been given to 
the filing of a brief. Their letter giving such consent has 
been given to the clerk. Counsel for appellees have re­
fused consent.

Respectfully submitted,

J o h n  L ig te n b e r g ,
134 North La Salle St., Chicago 2, Illinois.

Counsel for American Federation 
of Teachers,

Amicus Curiae.
S e l m a  M. B o b c h a r d t ,

Homer Building, Washington, D. C.

Of Counsel.