St. Helena Parish School Board v. Hall Motion to Affirm as to Certain Appellants and to Dismiss or Affirm as to Others

    I n the

npxmx i&mxt ni tlje Wmtxb States
October Term, 1961 

No. 586

S t. H elena P arish S chool B oard, et al.,
Appellants,

L awrence H all, et al.,
Appellees.

APPEAL PROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OP LOUISIANA, BATON ROUGE DIVISION

MOTION TO AFFIRM AS TO CERTAIN APPELLANTS 
AND TO DISMISS OR AFFIRM AS TO OTHERS

J ack Greenberg 
J ames M. N abrit, III 
M ichael Meltsner 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York

A. P. T ureaud

1821 Orleans Avenue 
New Orleans, Louisiana

Attorneys for Appellees.



I N D E X

Statement .........................................................       2

Argument ........................................      5

I. The Motion to Dismiss ........................................ 5
II. Motion to Affirm ..................................................  7

Conclusion.............  .......................................................  13

Table of Cases

Aaron v. Cooper, 261 F. 2d 97 (8th Cir. 1958) ..............  12
Aaron v. McKinley, 173 F. Supp. 944 (E. D. Ark. 

1959), aff’d sub nom. Faubus v. Aaron, 361 U. S.
197 .................................................................................  9

Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624 ..........  10
Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University

v. Fleming, 265 F. 2d 736 (5th Cir. 1959) ..... .........  8
Boson v. Rippy, 285 F. 2d 43 (5th Cir. 1960) ..........  10
Boston Tow Boat Co. v. United States, 321 U. S. 632 .... 7
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 ....... ...... 7
Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294 .............. 2, 7
Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, 187 F. Supp. 42

(E. D. La. 1960), aff’d 365 U. S. 569 .....................  10
Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, 188 F. Supp.

916 (E. D. La, 1960), aff’d sub nom. Orleans Parish
School Board v. Bush, 365 U. S. 569 ........................ 8,10

Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, 190 F. Supp.
861 (E. D. La. 1960), aff’d sub nom. Legislature of 
Louisiana v. Bush, 365 U. S. 569

PAGE

8



11

PAGE
Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, 191 F. Supp.

871 (E. D. La. 1961), aff’d sub nom. Legislature of 
Louisiana v. United States, 367 U.S. 908 .............. 8

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U. S. 1 ...... .......... ..................... 7,12

Denny v. Bush, 367 U. S. 908 .......................................  8
Dorsey v. State Athletic Commission, 168 F. Supp.

149 (E. D. La. 1958), aff’d 359 U. S. 533 .................  8

Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 ................................. 8

Fauhus v. Aaron, 361 U. S. 197 .......... .....................  9
Faubus v. United States, 254 F. 2d 797 (8th Cir. 

1958), cert, denied 358 U. S. 829 ......... ................... 8

Hill v. DeSoto Parish School Board, 177 La. 329, 148 
So. 248 .......... .................................................. ......... 10

James v. Almond, 170 F. Supp. 331 (E. D. Va. 1959), 
app. dism. 359 U. S. 1006 .......................................  9

Legislature of Louisiana v. United States, 367 U. S.
908 ................................. .............. ..............................  8

Nelson v. Mayor, etc., of Town of Homer, 48 La. Ann.
258, 19 So. 271 ............... ..................... .....................  10

Orleans Parish School Board v. Bush, 242 F. 2d 156 
(5th Cir. 1957), cert. den. 354 U. S. 521 .................  8

St. Helena Parish School Board v. Hall, 287 F. 2d 
376 (5th Cir. 1961), cert, denied 7 L. ed. 2d 33
(1961) ......................................... ............................ 2, 8,11



Singlemann v. Davis, 240 La. 929, 125 So. 2d 414......  10
State v. Barham, 173 La. 488, 137 So. 862 ___ ____  10
State v. City of New Orleans, 42 La. Ann. 92, 7 So. 674 .. 10

Tugwell v. Bush, 367 U. S. 907 ...................................  8

U nited S tates S tatutes

Federal Buies of Civil Procedure, Buie 65 .................  5
28 United States Code §1253 ....................................... 5

S tate S tatutes

Act 257, Legislative Session 1958, La. B.S. 17:2801 .... 12
Act No. 3, Second Extraordinary Session 1960, La.

B.S. 17:2901 ............................................ ................... 4,12
Act No. 2, Second Extraordinary Session of the Loui­

siana Legislature, 1961, La. B.S. 17:350 .......3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
9,11,12

Act No. 3, Second Extraordinary Session of the Loui­
siana Legislature, 1961 ..............................................  6

Act No. 5, Second Extraordinary Session of the Loui­
siana Legislature, 1961 ___ _____________ ______ 4, 6

Louisiana Constitution, Art. 12, §1 .............. ..............  10

Ill

PAGE



I s  THE

i>ttprm£ Court of fljr Intfrfi i ’tatro
October Term, 1961

No. 586

St. H elena P arish S chool B oard, et al.,
Appellants,

— v.—

L awrence H all, et al.,
Appellees.

appeal prom the  united states district court for the

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA, BATON ROUGE DIVISION

MOTION TO AFFIRM AS TO CERTAIN APPELLANTS 
AND TO DISMISS OR AFFIRM AS TO OTHERS

Appellees, pursuant to Rule 16 of the Revised Rules of 
the Supreme Court of the United States, move that the 
order of the District Court entered on August 30, 1961, be 
affirmed as to the appellants St. Helena Parish School 
Board and the members thereof, and J. H. Meadows, St. 
Helena Parish Superintendent of Schools, their successors, 
agents, representatives, attorneys, and all other persons 
who are acting or may act in concert with them, on the 
ground that the questions presented by their appeal are 
so unsubstantial as not to warrant further argument.

Appellees further move that the appeal of the appellants 
State of Louisiana, Jack P. F. Gremillion, Attorney Gen­
eral of Louisiana; Murphy J. Roden, Director of Public



2

Safety of Louisiana; Duncan S. Kemp, District Attorney 
of St. Helena Parish, Louisiana, and R. D. Bridges, Sheriff 
of St. Helena Parish, Louisiana, be dismissed because their 
appeal is not within the jurisdiction of this Court, or in 
the alternative, that the judgment against the last men­
tioned parties should be affirmed.

Statement

The original complaint in this action was filed on Sep­
tember 4, 1952, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief 
against racial segregation in the public schools of St. 
Helena Parish. On May 25, 1960, an order was entered 
by the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis­
trict of Louisiana, Baton Rouge Division, enjoining ap­
pellant School Board, its members, and Superintendent, 
“from requiring segregation of the races in any school 
under their supervision, and from engaging in any and all 
action which limits or affects the admission to, attendance 
in, or education of plaintiffs or any other Negro child 
similarly situated in schools under defendants’ jurisdiction, 
on the basis of race or color, from and after such time 
as may be necessary to make arrangement for admission 
of children to such schools on a racially non-discriminatory 
basis with all deliberate speed as required by the decision 
of the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, 
349 U. S. 294.” On appellants’ appeal this order was af­
firmed by the United States Court of Appeals on February 
9, 1961. St. Helena Parish School Board■ v. Hall, 287 F. 2d 
376 (5th Cir. 1961), cert, denied 7 L. ed. 2d 33 (1961).

On February 9, 1961, the day of affirmance by the Court 
of Appeals, the Governor of Louisiana called the Second 
Extraordinary Session of the Louisiana Legislature for 
1961 into session to act “relative to the education of the



3

school children of the State . . . for the preservation and 
protection” of state sovereignty. This session enacted Act 
No. 2,1 the law involved in this suit, and other related 
legislation designed to continue racial segregation in the 
public schools of the State of Louisiana. On February 20, 
1961, Act No. 2 became law. This Act provides in per­
tinent part that “in each parish of the State and in each 
municipality having a municipally operated school system, 
the school board shall have authority to suspend or close 
the operation of the public school system in the elementary 
and secondary grades after an election has first been held 
at which a majority of the qualified voters voting in said 
election have authorized such suspension or closing” ; that 
such election may be called on the initiative of a school 
board or on petition of ten percent of the qualified elec­
torate; that when the operation of schools is suspended 
in accordance with such an election it may not be resumed 
unless approved after a further election; and that when 
schools are closed the school board may lease or sell school 
sites, buildings and property, and abolish school taxes.

On March 2, 1961, the appellant St. Helena Parish 
School Board, on its own initiative, resolved to call an 
election pursuant to Act No. 2, such election to be held 
on April 22, 1961, for the purpose of determining whether 
to authorize the appellant Board to suspend or close the 
public elementary and secondary schools of said parish.

On March 16, 1961, appellees filed a supplemental com­
plaint asking the Court to restrain the St. Helena Parish 
School Board and its Superintendent of Schools from en­
forcing Act No. 2.

On March 17, 1961, the United States applied for an 
order designating it as amicus curiae, for an injunction

La. R.S. 17:350.



4

to restrain the enforcement of Acts No. 3 and 5 of the 
Second Extraordinary Session and for an order adding as 
parties defendant in the case, the State of Louisiana, the 
Governor, Attorney General, and Director of Public Safety 
of Louisiana, and the District Attorney and Sheriff of 
St. Helena Parish. The United States requested no relief 
involving Act No. 2 in this petition.

On April 14, 1961, the Court invited counsel for all 
parties and the United States as amicus curiae to file 
briefs presenting their views on various questions pro­
pounded by the Court. The United States submitted a 
brief discussing the constitutionality of Act No. 2 and 
concluding that it was unconstitutional. The United States 
did not file a complaint, motion or petition praying for 
relief against any defendant concerning Act No. 2.

On August 30, 1961, in an opinion, signed by Judges 
Wisdom, Christenberry and Wright, the Court held Act 
No. 2 violative of the equal protection clause of the Four­
teenth Amendment on two alternative grounds:

Most immediately, it is a transparent artifice de­
signed to deny the plaintiffs their declared constitu­
tional right to attend desegregated public schools. 
More generally, the Act is assailable because its ap­
plication in one parish, while the state provides public 
schools elsewhere, would unfairly discriminate against 
the residents of that parish, irrespective of race (Opin­
ion of the District Court as set forth in Jurisdictional 
Statement, pp. 33-34).

On August 30, 1961, the three-judge United States 
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Baton 
Eouge Division, entered its judgment, which judgment de­
clared Act No. 2 unconstitutional and enjoined defendants 
St. Helena Parish School Board and the members thereof,



5

and J. H. Meadows, St. Helena Parish Superintendent of 
Schools, their successors, agents, representatives, attor­
neys, and all other persons who are acting or may act in 
concert with them from enforcing or seeking to enforce 
by any means the provisions of Act Ho. 2 of the Second 
Extraordinary Session of the Louisiana Legislature for 
1961. The order of August 30, 1961 granted no relief 
against the other defendants added upon motion of the 
United States.

On September 11, 1961, appellants filed a Notice of 
Appeal to this Court in the United States District Court, 
Eastern District of Louisiana, Baton Rouge Division. On 
December 5, 1961, appellants filed their jurisdictional state­
ment in this Court.

ARGUMENT

I. T he Motion to Dismiss

The appeal of the State of Louisiana, Jack P. F. Gremil- 
lion, Attorney General of Louisiana; Murphy J. Roden, 
Director of Public Safety of Louisiana; Duncan S. Kemp, 
District Attorney of St. Helena Parish, Louisiana, and 
R. D. Bridges, Sheriff of St. Helena Parish, Louisiana, 
should be dismissed in that it is not within the jurisdiction 
of this Court because not taken in conformity with the 
applicable statute, namely, 28 U. S. C. §1253.

The order of August 30, 1961, did not grant any injunc­
tion or any other relief against the parties mentioned 
above. The only parties mentioned in that order were the 
St. Helena Parish School Board and the members thereof, 
and J. H. Meadows, St. Helena Parish Superintendent of 
Schools. (In addition, the order contained the usual refer­
ence to agents, attorneys and persons acting in concert with 
the named parties. Rule 65, Federal Rules of Civil Pro­



6

cedure.) None of the above-mentioned parties have been 
restrained from taking any action with respect to Act No. 
2 of the Second Extraordinary Session of the Louisiana 
Legislature for 1961 in this proceeding (unless, of course, 
they are acting in concert with the named parties) and it 
appears from the Act itself that none of these parties have 
any rights or duties under Act No. 2.

The State of Louisiana and the other parties mentioned 
above were added as defendants in this action on March 
17, 1961 (Jurisdictional Statement, p. 7) upon the request 
of the United States that it be allowed to participate in the 
action in the interest of justice as amicus curiae and upon 
the request of the United States that these parties be added 
as defendants. The motion filed by the United States on 
March 17, 1961 (granted by the order of that date) related 
exclusively to Acts Nos. 3 and 5 of the Second Extraor­
dinary Session of the Louisiana Legislature for 1961.2 
The Government’s petition for an injunction to restrain 
the enforcement of Acts Nos. 3 and 5 of the Second Ex­
traordinary Session, was entirely separate and distinct 
from the supplemental complaint filed by the plaintiffs 
Lawrence Hall, et al., which sought an injunction to re­
strain the St. Helena Parish School Board and J. H. Mea­
dows from enforcing Act No. 2 of the Second Extraordi­
nary Session of 1961. The temporary injunction issued by 
the court below does not mention Acts Nos. 3 and 5 and does 
not purport to enjoin the enforcement nor does that order

2 Act No. 3 punishes those who give or accept, or offer to give 
or accept “bribes” (“money or anything of apparent or prospective 
value”) to parents, tutors, guardians, etc., in order to “encourage, 
influence, prompt, reward or compensate” them for permitting a 
child to go to a desegregated public school.

Act _ No. 5 provides criminal penalties for any act done to a 
child in a public school, or to his parents, etc., the purpose of 
which is to cause such person or teacher, principal or other school 
employee to participate in public school desegregation.



7

enjoin the State of Louisiana, its Attorney General, its 
Director of Public Safety or the District Attorney or 
Sheriff of St. Helena Parish, Louisiana. It is therefore 
apparent that the appeal by the above mentioned parties 
from the order of August 30, 1961, is not within the juris­
diction of this Court and should be dismissed. See Boston 
Tow Boat Co. v. United States, 321 U. S. 632.

II. M otion  to  A ffirm

The decision of the court below is plainly correct and 
it is manifest that the questions upon which the decision 
of the cause depends are so unsubstantial in the light of the 
prior decisions of this Court as not to need further argu­
ment.

A. The appellants’ objection to the participation of the 
United States as amicus curiae in this litigation is plainly 
without merit. The only relief granted against the defen­
dants by the order of August 30, 1961, was that requested 
by appellees Lawrence Hall, et ah, in their supplemental 
complaint. The role of the United States in the litigation 
with respect to Act No. 2 was that of amicus curiae in the 
conventional sense. The United States as amicus briefed 
the issues, as did several state attorneys general, follow­
ing the invitation of the trial court in its order of April 
14, 1961. The United States has often participated in 
litigation involving racial discrimination as a friend of 
the court with the approval of this Court. See Brown v. 
Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 and 349 U. S. 294; 
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U. S. 1. However, the propriety of 
action by the United States as amicus curiae in actively 
intervening in such actions and advancing motions and 
applications for injunctions has been settled in related 
litigation where objections were raised by Louisiana offi­
cials to participation by the United States in school segre­



8

gation litigation. That issue was thoroughly discussed 
by a three-judge District Court in Bush v. Orleans Parish 
School Board, 191 F. Supp. 871, 875-878 (E. D. La., March 
3, 1961); and that decision was affirmed by this Court in 
its last term sub nom. Legislature of Louisiana v. United 
States, 367 U. S. 908; Denny v. Bush, 367 U. S. 908; and 
Tug well v. Bush, 367 U. S. 907. See also, Bush v. Orleans 
Parish School Board, 190 F. Supp. 861, 866 fn. 9 (E. D. 
La., Dec. 21, 1960), affirmed sub nom. Legislature of Lou­
isiana v. Bush, 365 U. S. 569 (No. 706, Oct. Term 1960). 
In any event, the fact that the appellees sought the same 
relief urged by the United States below would make un­
necessary a determination of the authority of the United 
States to seek affirmative relief as amicus curiae. Cf. 
Faubus v. United States, 254 F. 2d 797 (8th Cir. 1958), 
cert, denied 358 U. S. 829.

B. The appellants’ argument that this is a suit against 
the State and thus forbidden by the Eleventh Amendment 
of the United States Constitution is plainly without merit. 
This argument has been repeatedly advanced in similar 
cases, including other aspects of this case, and repeatedly 
rejected. See St. Helena Parish School Board v. Hall, 
287 F. 2d 376, 377 (5th Cir. 1961), cert, denied 7 L. ed. 2d 
33 (1961); Orleans Parish School Board v. Bush, 242 F. 
2d 156 (5th Cir. 1957), cert, denied 354 U. S. 521; Board 
of Supervisors of Louisiana State University v. Fleming, 
265 F. 2d 736 (5th Cir. 1959); Dorsey v. State Athletic 
Commission, 168 F. Supp. 149 (E. D. La. 1958), affirmed 
359 U. S. 533; Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, 188 
F. Supp. 916, 922 (E. D. La. 1960), aff’d sub nom. Orleans 
Parish School Board v. Bush, 365 U. S. 569; Ex parte 
Young, 209 U. S. 123.

C. The decision below correctly enjoined appellants St. 
Helena Parish School Board and the members thereof,



9

J. H. Meadows, St. Helena Parish Superintendent of 
Schools, their successors, agents, representatives, attorneys 
and others acting in concert with them from enforcing by 
any means the provisions of Act 2 of the Second Extraordi­
nary Session of the Louisiana Legislature for 1961, and 
therefore should be affirmed as to them. Act No, 2 (Appel­
lants’ Jurisdictional Statement, p. 61) provides that in each 
parish of the state the school board shall have authority to 
suspend or close the operation of the public school system 
in the elementary and secondary grades following a public 
referendum which may be called by each parish board on 
its own initiative, or upon petition of 10% of the qualified 
electors. Such an election was held at the initiative of the 
board. 1,461 white and 111 Negroes were eligible to vote; 
1,147 votes were cast for and 56 against, authorizing ap­
pellant school board to close the schools (Opinion of the 
Court below, Appellants’ Jurisdictional Statement p. 52, 
note 30).

Closing the schools in the context of the history of this 
case could only have the effect of denying appellees the 
equal protection of the laws in two principal ways:

1. As the court below held the “effect of the statute 
is to discriminate geographically against all students, 
white and colored, in St. Helena or any other community 
where the schools are closed under its provisions” (em­
phasis in original) (Appellants’ Jurisdictional Statement, 
pp. 43-44). For as the opinion below states, “absent a rea­
sonable basis for so classifying, a state cannot close the 
public schools in one area while, at the same time, it main­
tains schools elsewhere with public funds.” (Ibid.) See 
James v. Almond, 170 F. Supp. 331 (E. D. Va. 1959), 
appeal dismissed 359 U. S. 1006; Aaron v. McKinley, 173 
F. Supp. 944 (E. D. Ark. 1959), affirmed sub nom., Faubus 
v. Aaron, 361 U. S. 197; Bush v. Orleans Parish School



10

Board, 187 F. Supp. 42 (E. D. La. 1960), affirmed 365 U. S. 
569; id., 188 F. Supp. 916 (1960), affirmed 365 U. S. 569.

Education in Louisiana is a state as well as a local func­
tion. As the opinion below points out, “[tjhe Louisiana 
public school system is administered on a statewide basis, 
financed out of funds collected on a statewide basis, under 
the control and supervision of public officials exercising 
statewide authority under the Louisiana Constitution and 
appropriate state legislation.” See Nelson v. Mayor, etc., 
of Town of Homer, 48 La. Ann. 258, 19 So. 271; Hill v. 
DeSoto Parish School Board, 177 La. 329, 148 So. 248, 250; 
State v. City of New Orleans, 42 La. Ann. 92, 7 So. 674, 
677; State v. Barham, 173 La. 488, 137 So. 862, 864; Singel- 
mann v. Davis, 240 La. 929, 125 So. 2d 414, 417. And see 
Appendix A to opinion below in Appellants’ Jurisdictional 
Statement, pp. 53-58.

The Louisiana Constitution at present provides for a 
single state system. Article 12, §1. Public education is 
within the control of the central state government, the 
state legislature, and the State Department of Education. 
See cases and statutes cited by the court below (Appel­
lants’ Jurisdictional Statement, p. 48).

The fact that the decision involved a prerequisite local 
referendum does not immunize it from the equal protection 
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See, Board of 
Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 638; Boson v. Hippy, 
285 F. 2d 43, 45 (5th Cir. 1960). Indeed the state acting 
through the electorate logically cannot be distinguished 
from the state as it acts through its legislature or executive 
agencies.

2. Fundamentally, the statute below and its application 
are integral parts of the Louisiana program of massive 
resistance against the requirements of the Equal Protec­



11

tion clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Immediately 
following the decision of the Court of Appeals for the 
Fifth Circuit in St. Helena Parish School Board v. Hall, 
287 F. 2d 376 (5th Cir. 1961), the Governor of the State 
called the Legislature into Extraordinary Session to legis­
late with respect to education and “the preservation and 
protection” of state sovereignty. Shortly thereafter he 
certified as Emergency Legislation Act No. 2, which is 
the subject of this case and related legislation designed to 
perpetuate racial segregation in education (see Opinion 
of the Court Below, Appellants’ Jurisdictional Statement, 
p. 33). While the language of the statute is Aesopian, the 
circumstances of its legislative history and its obvious 
intent and effect expose it as merely another effort to per­
petuate segregation. The opinion of the court below 
(Appellants’ Jurisdictional Statement, pp. 36-38), sets 
forth the language of the President pro tern, of the Senate 
explaining the bill as follows:

“As I see it, Louisiana, is entering into a new phase 
in its battle to maintain its segregated school system. 
The keystone to this new phase is the local option 
plan we have under consideration.” Times-Picayune, 
February 20, 1961. (Appellants’ Jurisdictional State­
ment, p. 37.)

As the opinion of the court below sums it up:
“ . . . the legislative leaders announced without 

equivocation that the purpose of the packaged plan 
was to keep the state in the business of providing 
public education on a segregated basis.” (Appellants’ 
Jurisdictional Statement, p. 38.)

Pursuant to this scheme, following school closing, the 
board is authorized to dispose of school property to private



12

schools—in connection with which other legislation has 
authorized the establishment of cooperatives which may 
receive state grants-in-aid. See Act 257 Legislative Ses­
sion of 1958, La. R.S. 17:2801; Act. No. 3, Second Extraor­
dinary Session of 1960, La. R.S. 17:2901. The highly 
articulated plan of which Act No. 2 and these other acts 
are a part is described in greater length in the opinion of 
the court below. See Appellants’ Jurisdictional Statement, 
pp. 38-42.

In proceeding with the implementation of Act No. 2, 
as part of this scheme to perpetuate segregation in the 
face of a federal court decree, the appellants merited the 
injunction entered against them before they had taken 
further steps to deny children of the parish their consti­
tutional rights. For as this Court held in Cooper v. Aaron, 
358 U. S. 1, 17:

“The constitutional rights of children not to be dis­
criminated against in school admission on grounds of 
race or color declared by this Court in the Brown case 
can neither be nullified openly and directly by state 
legislators or state executive or judicial officers, not 
nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes 
for segregation whether attempted ‘ingeniously or in­
genuously.’ ”

And as the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held in 
the same case, Aaron v. Cooper, 261 F. 2d 97, 106, 107 (8th 
Cir. 1958):

“State support of segregated schools through any 
arrangement, management, funds, or property cannot 
be squared with the Fourteenth Amendment’s com­
mand that no State shall deny to any person within its 
jurisdiction the equal protection of the Laws.”



13

CONCLUSION

It is respectfully submitted that the appeal of the ap­
pellants St. Helena Parish School Board and its members 
and J. H. Meadows, Superintendent of Schools presents 
no substantial question for decision by this Court and 
that the order of the District Court should be affirmed. 
It is further submitted that the appeal of the appellants 
State of Louisiana, Attorney General of the State of 
Louisiana, Director of Public Safety of Louisiana, and the 
District Attorney and Sheriff of St. Helena Parish, Loui­
siana, is not within the jurisdiction of this Court and 
should be dismissed, or in the alternative, that the judg­
ment should be affirmed as to these appellants.

Respectfully submitted,

J ack Greenberg 
J ames M. N abrit, III 
Michael Meltsner 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, New York

A. P. T ureaud 
1821 Orleans Avenue 
New Orleans, Louisiana

Attorneys for Appellees.