Brooks v. County School Board of Arlington County, Virginia Appellees' Brief and Appendix

    aly 

> \ > o~* 

p27 bw} J ma } J @ 
p 4 lem al ASA ___ bate 

E_RELEASE 

June 4, 1973 

Top Court Gives Okay 

SOCK DESEGREGATION FOOT-DRAGGERS 
FOR COUNSEL F. OF WINNERS 

IN CiVIL RIGHTS CASES 

Attorneys' fees for plaintiffs in school desegregation 

cases where the plaintiffs are unable to Pay may become a 

virtual certainty, according to a unanimous decision of the 

United States Supreme Court handed down this morning (Monday, 

June 4). 

The Court's decision in Northcross v. Board of Education 

of the Memphis City Schools means that poor parents attempting 

to cantest segregated schools will not be barred by lack of 

money from bringing suit. If victorious, their counsel fees 

will be paid by the defendant board of education or municipality. 

in school desegregation cases "the successful plaintiff 

‘should ordinarily recover an attorney's fees unless special 

circumstances would render such an award unjust,'" the Court's 

per curiam opinion said. 

The impact of the Court's 8-0 opinion - Justice Marshall 

did not participate - is likely to be twofold, according to Eric 

Schnapper of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, which brought the case. 

First, it will encourage plaintiffs to sue and attorneys 

to take such cases. Many civil rights attorneys who would 

otherwise be reluctant to take non-paying, complex school de- 

segregation test cases may now be inclined to do so. 

=(more — 

NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. | 10 Columbus Circle | New York, N.Y. 10019 | (212) 586-8397 
liam T, Coleman, Jr. + President Jack Greenberg - Dire 



Second, school boards inclined to delay the transition from 

dual to unitary school systems will now think twice, knowing that 

if their inaction lands them in court, they may be held liable 

for their opponents' attorneys’ fees. The Supreme Court decision 

thus places substantial economic leverage in the hands of those 

who could not otherwise sue to end desegregated schools. 

“Rather than simply asking the lower court if it had con- 

sidered §718, the Justices took the opportunity to announce the 

proper interpretation of the law for the lower courts' guidance," 

said Norman Chachkin of the Legal Defense Fund. 

"Moreover," he added, "the Court took quick action despite 

the lack of an outright conflict among written opinions of the 

different Circuit Courts of Appeals, since the Sixth Circuit 

wrote no opinion in this case." 

The Court: remanded the case to the Sixth Circuit to re- 

consider its decision denying costs and fees in light of. today's 

ruling. 

"We believe that this decision means that the award 

of counsel fees will be virtually automatic in every school 

desegregation case," said Schnapper. As yet, however, there 

is no indication how great the awards will be; they will, of 

course, vary from case to case. 

25308= 

For further information contact: Frederick Koyle 
Acting Director 
NAACP Legal Defense Fund 
Office of Public Information 
[212] 586-8397 x 303 

NOTE: Please bear in mind that the Legal Defense Fund is a 

completely separate and distinct organization even 

through it was established by the NAACP and retains 
the initials in its name. The correct designation 

is NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., 

frequently shortened to LDF.