Rosario v Griffin Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

    Weress RELEASE . & 

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 
TOCOLUMBUS CIRCLE «© NEW YORK19,N.Y. ¢ JUdson 6-8397. 

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

October 9, 1963,° 
ae 

MEMORA Wp U_M. 

TO: NEWS EDITORS AND WRITERS 

FROM: Jesse DeVore, Director of Public Information 
New York: Days JUdson 6-8397 

Evenings - RI 9-8487 

Washington, D.C. -(October 14 and 15) 
Statler-Hylton Hotel, 
Phone: {Area Code 202) EXecutive 3-1000, 

SUBJECT: Supreme Court begins New Term with five sit-in cases, 
during which attorneys for the NAACP Legal Defense 

ise Fund will present argument, which, if successful, will 
vindicate thousands of sit-in demonstrators and cast 
a new light on the issue of publie accemmodations. 

BACKGR.CUND_ 

¢ Ps Attorneys of the NAACP jhegal Defense Fund will argue three 
sit-in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court beginning this Monday 

Hs morning October 14; they are of counsel in a fourth case; and are 
working cooperatively with lawyers in a fifth. 

All five will be heard successively with six and a half hours 
of argument expected to conclude Tuesday, according to geek Green- 
berg, director-counsel of the Fund. 

The cases involve Negro student demonstrators who protested 
against discriminatory public accommodations in South Carolina and 
Maryland (two cases from each) and Florida. 

Although presented in a single brief, the three NAACP egal 
Defense Fund cases will be argued by three noted civil rights — 
attorneys: 

+ Charles F, Barr, et al, v. City of Columbia, South Carolina, 
- will be argued by Katthew J, Perry of Columbia; on Bouie and 
Talmadge J, Neal v. City of Columbia, South Carolina, will be argue 
by Constance Baker Motley, associate-counsel, NAACP Legal Defense 
Fund; and, Robert Mack Bell, et al., v. Maryland, will be argued 
by Mr. Greenberge 

- _(See biographical notes attached) 

This is the third year that the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, 
a separate corporation from the NAACP, has defended sit-in demon- 
strators before the High Court, 

eS “The Fund, which serves as the legal arm of the entire civil 
rights movement, is currently defending 7,500 persons involved in 
124separate civil rights actions involving all the major civil 
rights groups, 

; SS 
ie: more, 

& 



oo : a 
Sit-in cases before Supreme Court = of? 

NEWS ANGLE 

; There are three unique factors in this collective brief, 
which was prepared by a battery of 18 lawyers: 

(1) The pin pointing of state responsibility in the maze of 
arguments on private property rights, etc, 

(2) Assistance of four noted legal scholars in preparing the 
brief, including Richard R. Powell, leading authority on 
property, 

(3) Citing of the laws #f 14 other nations, 

But, perhaps the point of hardest news will be the argument 
which urges that southern states should take affirmative steps to 
protect Negroes seeking equality in public accommodations, 

The brief points out the improbability of punishment for 
sit-in type conduct in any of the Western European democracies or 
in England or any of the British Commonwealth nations, 

Legal Defense Fund attorneys further point out that the 
states have affirmative responsibility to protect equal rights o 

-citizens and argue that the southern states have not met this 
_ responsibility when they allow lunch counter segregation, 

The brief also urges that while constitutional prohibi ‘ 
against racial discrimination must be applied to the public li of 

_ the community they need not govern the private and personal lives of © 
citizens, 

Ss: Three patterns, by which southern states (South Carolina and 
- Maryland in this instance) deny Negroes equal justice, are summarized 

in the brief filed Tuesday, August 27, 1963, 

* State courts and public officials "are employed to en 
a scheme of racial discrimination originating in a nominally ' 

choice," 

* "Where a nominally ‘private’ act or scheme of racial dis- 
crimination is performed,..because of the influence of custom, and 
here such custom has been in turn, in significant part, created or 
aintained by formal law." ‘ y 

* Where laws are maintained that place "a higher value on a 
~ narrow property claim" than on the claim of Negroes "to move about 
'free from inconvenience and humiliation of racial discrimination," 

The Legal Defense Fund is urging that sourthern states have im- 
properly decided to back store owners who cite local custom and state 
laws calling for jim crow treatment of Negroes, 

“which consists of nothing but the exclusion of Negroes" should 
be allowed "to justify a state in knowing support of public dis- 
crimination," 

The attorneys said "maintaining a 'narrow' property otal a = 
it 

The brief further stated that "it is scandalous that states 
impose the burdens of state citizenship on Negroes, and benefiting 
from the imposition on them of the duties of federal citizenship, 
not only should fail to protect them in their right to be treated 

~ equally in fully public places, but should instead place the weight 
a behind their humiliation," 

‘ It was stressed in the brief that “the records in these cases * 
affirmatively establish that no private or personal associational oo 
interest is at stake," 

more. f 
eipes 



NS 
‘ 
») Sit-in cases before Supreme Court 

"This is obvious on the face of it: the relation involved 
is that of a restaurant-keeper to a casual customer," 

The attorneys continued saying that "the events and the ' 
issues in these cases are in the fully public rather than in 
private life, 

"A restaurant is a public place, contrasting totally with 
the home and other traditional citadels of privacy," 

Moving to the charge that the sit-ins students provoked 
breach of the peace, the brief said "there was no showing of any 
act of violence and there was no showing of any act 'likely to 
produce violence," 

The Legal Defense Fund lawyers took exception to the theory 
that the “possibility that the mere presence of Negroes in a place 
customarily frequented only by white persons is punishable as a i 
threat to peace," 

They quickly added that such could not be so, due to the % 
equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. fl 

y 
Joining the NAACP Legal Defense Fund attorneys in prepara 

tion of the brief were four internationally noted legal scholars: 
Professor-Emeritus Richard R. Powell, Columbia University Law $ 
School, and author of the widely acclaimed and used treatise " 
Property", 

He was also reporter on property for the American Law 
Institute's "Restatement of Property". Long recognized as a 
leading expert in this legal speciality, Dr. Powell now teache 
Hasting College of Law, San Francisco, California, 

Also assisting on the brief was Professor Hans Smit of 
Columbia University, a Member of the Bar, Supreme Court of 
Netherlands; Professor Charles L. Black, the Henry R. Luce C 
of Jurisprudence, Yale University; and Louis L, Pollak, Profe 
of Law, Yale University. 

NAACP Legal Defense lawyers on the brief included Jack 
Greenberg, Constance Baker Motley, James M. Nabrit, III, Derrick A, 
Bell, Leroy D. Clark, Michael Meltsner and Inez V. Smith, all of 

“New York, 

Also Juanita Jackson Mitchell, and Tucker R, Dearing, 
Maryland; Joseph L. Rauh and John Silard, Washington, D.C.; 
William T. Coleman, Jr,, Pennsylvania; Matthew J. Perry and 
Lincoln C, Jenkins, South Carolina, 

= 30-2 



BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES ON NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE FUND ATTORNEYS 
APPEARING THIS WEEK BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT. 

CONSTANCE BAKER MOTLEY 

g Mrs, Motley has appeared before the Supreme Court on five 
previous occasions, winning six times (one case was ruled on without 

nS ~ oral argument). This marks her sixth appearance before the High 
“Court. 

Her courtroom victories have encompessed every area of the 
civil rights struggle. Among her most famous cases were James 

; -Méredith and Cleve McDowell at the University of Mississippi; 
“James Hood and Vivian Malone at the University of Alabama; and 
more recently the first school integration of elementary and high 
‘ 1 level in the city of Alabama; and finally, Charlayne Hunter 

amilton Holmes at the University of Georgia. 

} JACK GREENBERG. 

Mr. Greenberg has appeared before the Supreme Court sight 
tines, winning all eight cases, 

, Though only 30 years old at the time, Mr. Greenberg 
istant to Thurgood Marshall during the preparation and 
istoric school integration suits ruled on favourabl 
Court in May of 1954, 

Among other historic cases in which Mr. Greenberg has had = 
major hand in creating and directing legal strategy have been those 
establishing (1) the right of admission of Negro students to 
raduate and professional schools in the South; (2) the right of 
egro passengers to travel both interstate and intrastate without 

being segregated by race; . (3) the abolition of discrimination in 
housing. 

Mr, Greenberg became director-counsel of the NAACP Legal 
fense and Educational Fund in October, 1961. 

MATTHEW J. PERRY. 

Mr. Perry is one of the more than 100 cooperating attorneys 
pe work with the Legal Defense Fund, He is a member of e firm 
of Jenkins & Perry, with offices in Columbia, South Caro 
This is Mr. Perry's sixth appearance before the Supreme = 
during the five year period in which he has argued civil rights 
cases for the Legal Defense Fund. He is a graduate of South 
arolina State College of Law; is married to the former Hallie 

Bacote. They have one child, Michael, aged 2% years, » 

230 <