U.S. Supreme Court Asked to Review Convictions in South Carolina Sit-Ins
Press Release
June 8, 1962
Cite this item
-
Press Releases, Loose Pages. U.S. Supreme Court Asked to Review Convictions in South Carolina Sit-Ins, 1962. af1b4c30-bd92-ee11-be37-6045bddb811f. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/8c30ccf2-015c-49f0-a7bb-7a10a67cff4d/us-supreme-court-asked-to-review-convictions-in-south-carolina-sit-ins. Accessed January 07, 2026.
Copied!
PRESS RELEASE
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND
1O COLUMBUS CIRCLE + NEW YORK19,N.Y. © JUdson 6-8397
DR. ALLAN KNIGHT CHALMERS JACK GREENBERG CONSTANCE BAKER MOTLEY
Prasident Director-Counsel Associate Counsel
Bes
U. S. SUPREME COURT ASKED TO REVIEW
CONVICTIONS IN SOUTH CAROLINA SIT-INS
June 8, 1962
NEW YORK -- NAACP Legal Defense Fund attorneys asked the U. S. Supreme
Court this week to review the convictions of two Negro college students
who were arrested for lunch counter sit-ins in Columbia, S. C. in 1960.
The demonstrators, Simon Bouie and Talmadge J. Neal, were
arrested on March 14, 1960, in Eckerd's Variety Store in Columbia.
They had requested service at the store's all-white lunch counter.
Eckerd's sells to Negroes in its other departments, but bars them
from its lunch counter.
Both were convicted of trespassing and Bouie, of resisting
arrest in Recorder's Court when he asked the arresting officer what he
was being arrested for.
On appeal, the Supreme Court of South Carolina upheld the tres-
pass convictions, but reversed the "resisting arrest" charge on
February 13, 1962.
In their petition to the high Court, Fund attorneys argue that
the convictions conflict with prior decisions of the Supreme Court
condemning the use of state power to enforce racial segregation.
"The only apparent state interest being subserved by this tres-
pass prosecution is support of the property owner's discrimination
in conformity to the state's segregation custom..." the attorneys
contend,
The petition also argues that the South Carolina trespass statute
is unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous.
The Columbia petition is the thirteenth sit-in case involving
trespass convictions which the Fund has asked the Supreme Court to
review this term. On March 14, the Court granted review of a protest
demonstration case involving convictions of 187 Negro students from
parading on the South Carolina Statehouse grounds in 1961. The case
will be heard next fall.
NAACP Legal Defense Fund attorneys for the two Columbia students
are Matthew J. Perry ard Lincoln C. Jenkins, Jr., of Columbia, and
Jack Greenberg, Constance Baker Motley, James M. Nabrit, III and
Michael Meltsner of New York City.
<ccoue=