Memo from Lani Guinier to Penda Hair and Gail RE Georgia litigation study

    Supreme Court of the United States
October Term, 1950

No.

WILLIAM DONALD CARMICHAEL, JR., President of 
the University of North Carolina; HENRY P. BRANDIS, 
JR., Dean of the Law School of the University of North 
Carolina; LEE ROY WELLS ARMSTRONG, Director of 
Admissions of the University of North Carolina; ARCH 
T. ALLEN, Secretary of the Board of Trustees of the 
University of North Carolina; and the University of North 
Carolina, a body Incorporate,

Petitioners,
against

FLOYD B. McKISSICK, SOLOMON REVIS, JAMES 
LASSITER and J. KENNETH LEE,

Respondents.

R obert L. Carter,
T htjrgood Marshall,
C. 0 . P earson,
F rank D. R eeves,
Spottswood W. R obinson, III, 

Counsel for Respondents.

Printed by Law Reporter Ptg. Co., 518 5th St., Wash., D. C.



Court of the United States
October Term, 1950

No.

WILLIAM DONALD CARMICHAEL, JR., President of 
the University of North Carolina; JIENR'y P. BRANDIS, 
JR., Dean of the Law School of the University of North 
Carolina; LEE ROY WELLS ARMSTRONG, Director of 
Admissions of the University of North Carolina; ARCH 
T. ALLEN, Secretary of the Board of Trustees of the 
University of North Carolina; and the University of North 
Carolina, a body Incorporate,

Petitioners,
against

FLOYD B. McKISSICK, SOLOMON REVIS, JAMES 
LASSITER and J. KENNETH LEE,

Respondents.

OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR W RIT OF 
CERTIORARI

The petition for writ of certiorari and brief in support 
thereof filed by petitioners herein fail to show any recog­
nizable ground for review by this Court.

The petition in this case, like the petition for writ of 
certiorari in Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629, fails to dis­
tinguish between findings of fact by a trial judge and con­
clusions of law by a trial judge determining the application

1



2

of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States 
Constitution.

The plain and concise statements of law set forth in the 
unanimous opinion in Sweatt v. Painter have been reen­
forced by the decision of this Court in Board of Supervisors 
of Louisiana State University et al. v. Roy S. Wilson, 95 
L. ed. (Ad. Op.) 200, in which this Court affirmed the judg­
ment of the United States District Court for the Eastern 
District of Louisiana granting a preliminary injunction 
restraining the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State 
University from enforcing an order excluding Negroes from 
admission to the law school of Louisiana State University. 
In that case there was a separate Negro law school in 
existence which had been in operation for several years.

The only difference between the facts in the instant case 
and the facts recognized by this Court in Sweatt v. Painter, 
is that the Negro law school in North Carolina had been in 
existence longer than the Negro law school in Texas. The 
other point raised by petitioners which was considered and 
rejected by the Court of Appeals is that the state of North 
Carolina was proceeding “ in good faith.”  The Court of 
Appeals considered this point and concluded that “ The 
situation differs in circumstance but not in principle from 
the decision in Siveatt v. Painter . . . ”  The Court of Ap­
peals then quoted from the opinion of this Court in Sweatt 
v. Painter and concluded that the decision of the District 
Court should be reversed.

The opinion and judgment of the Court of Appeals for 
the Fourth Circuit in the above-entitled ease is clearly in 
keeping with the decision of this Court in the two cases 
cited above.

It should also be noted that the University law school 
(white) holds a summer session and the college law school 
(Negro) does not hold a summer session.

It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that this Court 
should, during this term, prior to commencement of the sum­



3

mer session, either affirm the decision of the United States 
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit or refuse to issue 
its writ of certiorari.

R obert L. Carter,
T hurgood Marshall,
C. 0. P earson,
F rank D. R eeves,
Spottswood W. R obinson, III, 

Counsel for Respondents.