U.S. Supreme Court Asked to Review Convictions in South Carolina Sit-Ins

Attorney Notes Pages 1444-1445, 1599 preview

Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.

Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:

For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):

Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.

LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.

If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.

NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.

Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.

I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.

If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at

Date is approximate.

LDF Attorneys
Cooperating Attorney
- Leslie J. Winner
Organization
- NAACP Legal and Educational Defense Fund, Inc.
Matter
- Gingles
Case
- Thornburg v. Gingles
U.S. state
- North Carolina
Collection
- Case Files
Creator
- Lani Guinier
Taxonomy
Identifier
- 395854f0-e092-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873

Cite this item

Press Releases, Loose Pages. U.S. Supreme Court Asked to Review Convictions in South Carolina Sit-Ins, 1962. af1b4c30-bd92-ee11-be37-6045bddb811f. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/8c30ccf2-015c-49f0-a7bb-7a10a67cff4d/us-supreme-court-asked-to-review-convictions-in-south-carolina-sit-ins. Accessed August 19, 2025.

Copied!

    PRESS RELEASE 

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 
1O COLUMBUS CIRCLE + NEW YORK19,N.Y. © JUdson 6-8397 

DR. ALLAN KNIGHT CHALMERS JACK GREENBERG CONSTANCE BAKER MOTLEY 
Prasident Director-Counsel Associate Counsel 

Bes 

U. S. SUPREME COURT ASKED TO REVIEW 
CONVICTIONS IN SOUTH CAROLINA SIT-INS 

June 8, 1962 

NEW YORK -- NAACP Legal Defense Fund attorneys asked the U. S. Supreme 

Court this week to review the convictions of two Negro college students 

who were arrested for lunch counter sit-ins in Columbia, S. C. in 1960. 

The demonstrators, Simon Bouie and Talmadge J. Neal, were 

arrested on March 14, 1960, in Eckerd's Variety Store in Columbia. 

They had requested service at the store's all-white lunch counter. 

Eckerd's sells to Negroes in its other departments, but bars them 

from its lunch counter. 

Both were convicted of trespassing and Bouie, of resisting 

arrest in Recorder's Court when he asked the arresting officer what he 

was being arrested for. 

On appeal, the Supreme Court of South Carolina upheld the tres- 

pass convictions, but reversed the "resisting arrest" charge on 

February 13, 1962. 

In their petition to the high Court, Fund attorneys argue that 

the convictions conflict with prior decisions of the Supreme Court 

condemning the use of state power to enforce racial segregation. 

"The only apparent state interest being subserved by this tres- 

pass prosecution is support of the property owner's discrimination 

in conformity to the state's segregation custom..." the attorneys 

contend, 

The petition also argues that the South Carolina trespass statute 

is unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous. 

The Columbia petition is the thirteenth sit-in case involving 

trespass convictions which the Fund has asked the Supreme Court to 

review this term. On March 14, the Court granted review of a protest 

demonstration case involving convictions of 187 Negro students from 

parading on the South Carolina Statehouse grounds in 1961. The case 

will be heard next fall. 

NAACP Legal Defense Fund attorneys for the two Columbia students 
are Matthew J. Perry ard Lincoln C. Jenkins, Jr., of Columbia, and 
Jack Greenberg, Constance Baker Motley, James M. Nabrit, III and 
Michael Meltsner of New York City. 

<ccoue=

Copyright notice

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.

Attorney Notes Pages 1444-1445, 1599

LDF Attorneys

Cooperating Attorney

Organization

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Creator

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in