Board of Education of the City of Birmingham v. Armstrong Petitioners' Reply

Public Court Documents
January 17, 1964

Board of Education of the City of Birmingham v. Armstrong Petitioners' Reply preview

Cite this item

  • Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Board of Education of the City of Birmingham v. Armstrong Petitioners' Reply, 1964. a505dce4-c69a-ee11-be37-000d3a574715. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/afad9cf9-b89b-4989-98ac-90b7c11e0e69/board-of-education-of-the-city-of-birmingham-v-armstrong-petitioners-reply. Accessed June 17, 2025.

    Copied!

    IN THE

i>itpnmtT ©curt ni %  Inttefc BtaUz
OCTOBER TERM, 1963

No. 670

T h e  B oard of E ducation  of t h e  C it y  of 
B ir m in g h a m , et al.,

Petitioners,
v.

D w ig h t  A rm strong , et al.,
Respondents.

L inda  S u e  G ib so n , et al.,
Petitioners,

v.

C arolyn  E leanor  H arris, et al.,
Respondents.

L aw rence  R oberts, et al.,

v.
Petitioners,

R a l ph S t e l l , et al.,
Respondents.

PETITIONERS’ REPLY
Petitioners, having this day received respondents’ brief 
opposition, respectfully submit for their reply:

J A'M£s . M. NABRjU, IU



2

I.
1. Timeliness as to all three cases arises from the 

authority of 28 USC §2101(e) to apply for writ of 
certiorari “at any time before judgment [in the Court of 
Appeals].”

2. Additionally, timeliness of the application as to 
Gibson is conceded. Since the single petition authorized 
by Rule 23(5) is timely in part, it must be timely as to 
all, since the issue is unitary in character.

3. Respondents argue without citation that this Court 
is limited under §2101 (e) to consideration of the merits 
of the action of the District Court which the Court of 
Appeals is reviewing.

(a) There is no such limitation in the statutory 
language.

(b) It is §2101 (c)—the 90 day provision—rather 
than 2101(e) which is limited to “judgment or 
decree” as opposed to the authority of this Court 
under §2106 over “judgment, decree, or order.” 
The questioned rulings are clearly “orders” in this 
legislative classification.

4. There has been no delay. One or two such orders 
as are here complained of may be error, but they do not 
rise to the status of a judicial practice meriting extra­
ordinary review. It is the cumulation of the four uniquely 
similar orders that creates the situation of “imperative 
public importance” described in Rule 20.

II.
The merits are not here in issue, and petitioners accord­

ingly have been prejudiced by respondents’ characteriza­
tions and comments on the lower court rulings. If the



3

underlying issues are deemed pertinent to the Court’s 
decision, petitioners pray an opportunity to be heard in 
opposition.

III.
The absence of any citation of precedent or textual 

support in respondents’ brief for the assertion of sub­
stantially unlimited writ powers in Courts of Appeals 
confirms the conclusion of our own research that no orders 
of the character of the four here sought to be reviewed 
have ever previously been issued by any Court of the 
United States.

Geo . S t e p h e n  L eonard

R eid B . B arnes

1730 K Street, N. W. 
Washington 6, D. C. 
Counsel for Petitioners

January 17, 1964

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.


Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Return to top