Supreme Court Hears Memphis Recreation Suit Argument

    “PRESS RELEASE @ r ) 

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 
1OCOLUMBUS CIRCLE + NEW YORK19,N.Y. © JUdson 6-8397 

DR. ALLAN KNIGHT CHALMERS JACK GREENBERG CONSTANCE BAKER MOTLEY 
President Director-Counsel Associate Counsel 

o> 

SUPREME COURT HEARS MEMPHIS 
RECREATION SUIT ARGUMENT April 18, 1963 

WASHINGTON -- The United States Supreme Court heard argument this 

week on a suit involving desegregation of park and playground facili- 

ties in Memphis, Tenn. 

Mrs. Constance Baker Motley, Associate Counsel of the NAACP Leg= 

Defense Fund, argued on behalf of the Negro petitioners. 

She asked the Court to reverse opinions by the Federal District 

Court in Memphis and the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which 

held that the Memphis Park Commission could desegregate their 130 

park and playground facilities on a gradual basis in accordance with 

the second Brown "all deliberate speed" decision on schools. 

Mrs. Motley told the high Court that the rights of Negro citi- 

zens should have been immediately enforced, and that the Brown case 

is not applicable to public recreation. She told the Court that 

Negroes are now excluded from 58 public parks and playgrounds in 

Memphis. 

District Judge Marion S. Boyd had ruled on June 20, 1961, that 

the Park Commission must submit a plan within six months -- and the 

Commission submitted to the Court of Appeals a plan which it had 

drawn up calling for desegregation over a ten year period. On June 12 

1962, the Court of Appeals upheld Judge Boyd's decision. 

Supreme Court Justice William Brennan asked Mrs, Motley if this 

case involves "primarily the rights of Negro children." Mrs. Motley 

said that it did, adding that Negroes were excluded from CrumpStadium, 

the museum and 40 additional playgrounds operated but not owned by 

the City. 

"The rights involved here are basic, fundamental, and are 

personal and present," Mrs. Motley said, "and should be immediately 

enforced." 

She added that the Brown decision should not apply because 

public recreation is not as complex as a public school system with 



“ee e & 
Memphis Recreation Suit -- 2 

its vast personnel and administrative problems, "All that's involved 

is removal of racial signs and a public announcement that these 

facilities are now desegregated," she told the Court. 

Thomas R. Prewitt represented the City of Memphis. He argued 

that the Supreme Court could not consider the question of whether 

Judge Boyd's decision was justified because the entire record in the 

case was not before the Court. Upon questioning by Chief Justice 

Earl Warren, it was brought out that the record was before the Court. 

Mr. Prewitt said that recreational facilities in Memphis 

encompassed a "vast system," involving supervision of 100,000 childrer. 

of which 65% are white, 35% Negro. "Recreational facilities," he 

said, "should be desegregated in accordance with all other desegre- 

gation in Memphis, on a gradual basis." 

Argument began Wednesday afternoon, April 17th, and was com- 

pleted Thursday morning, April 18th. 

Attorneys for the Negro petitioners, in addition to Mrs. Motley, 

are A, W. Willis, Jr., B. L. Hooks, C, O. Horton, B. F. Jones, oun 

Lockard and R. B. Sugarmon, Jr., all of Memphis, Tenn., Norman C. 

Amaker, Derrick A. Bell, Jr. and Jack Greenberg of New York City. 

HA#