Georgia Statute Barring Indigent Tenant Defenses Taken to High Court for Review
Press Release
December 2, 1966

Cite this item
-
Press Releases, Volume 4. Georgia Statute Barring Indigent Tenant Defenses Taken to High Court for Review, 1966. 2931135d-b792-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/b375154e-ff75-4c48-bce0-fafa70aa34a1/georgia-statute-barring-indigent-tenant-defenses-taken-to-high-court-for-review. Accessed July 16, 2025.
Copied!
President Hon. Francis E. Rivers PRESS RELEASE Director Counsel egal efense und Jack Greenberg Director, Public Relations NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. Tous Devore te 10 Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y. 10019 * JUdson 6-8397 nuGHY NUMBER 212-749-8487 FOR RELEASE FRIDAY December 2, 1966 GEORGIA STATUTE BARRING INDIGENT TENANT DEFENSES TAKEN TO HIGH COURT FOR REVIEW Seven States With Similar Statutes Could Be Affected WASHINGTON---The U.S. Supreme Court was today asked to review the con- stitutionality of those statutes of the State of Georgia which prevent indigent tenants from making a defense against eviction orders because of their inability tc post bond in order to obtain a hearing. The petition was filed by attorneys for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc, (LDF)* on behalf of two indigent Negroes residing in Atlanta, Georgia, who were unable to defend an eviction order solely on the basis of their poverty. The LDF attorneys, in filing the petition for review, argued that the “Georgia Code 561-303 which barred the petitioners from a hearing because of their poverty is in conflict with the principles declared by this court, and is unconstitutional under the equal protection and due process clauses of the fourteenth amendment." The brief also raised an important constitutional issue in the develop- ing field of the Law of Poverty, and in a particularly crucial area of that field, landlord-tenant law. More specifically, the prief pointed out that the “existence of summary eviction procedures, in which there is a substantial economic obstacle preventing a tenant from contesting eviction, places an enormous amount of arbitrary power in the hands of the landlord." These ‘arbitrary powers," the lawyers assert, may be easily used in retaliation by landlords against those tenants who choose to complain about any housing code violation to the authorities. In such an event, the lawyers argue, “many tenants will be intimidated into suffering quietly." Under the existing statutes of the State of Georgia, a warrant for tenant's removal can be obtained by a landlord who goes before a judge of the superior court and files an affidavit. The tenant may contest the eviction order by filing a counter affidavit provided he posts a bond with substantial security as a pre-condition to making any defense, It is estimated that roughly 1400 eviction proceedings are brought each month by landlords in Atlanta, of which less than 1% are contested. Besides Georgia, there are seven other states in the U.S. with similar (but not identical) statutes, which require substantial security before permitting a tenant to defend against eviction orders. This is one of the first cases in the LDF's new program of litigation to protect and establish the rights of poor people. The LDF has become involved in cases seeking to make precedent of poverty law questions just as it has done over the years in civil rights cases, LDF attorneys filing the petition are Director-Counsel Jack Greenberg, James M, Nabrit III, Charles H. Jones, Jr., and Charles Stephen Ralston of New York, and Howard Moore, Jr. of Atlanta, -30- * The LDF is a separate, independent organization from the NAACP, The names are similar because the LDF was established as a different organi- zation by the NAACP and through the years has gained complete autonomy.