Louisiana State Board of Education v Priscilla Angel Brief for Appellees

    Imti'ft States (tart of Appeals
F oe the F ifth  Circuit

I n  th e

No. 18,521

L ouisiana State B oard op E ducation, 
R obert H. Curey, President, et al.,

—versus-
Appellants,

P riscilla A ngel, et al.,
Appellees.

appeal from the united states district court for the

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

BRIEF FOR APPELLEES

A. P. T ureaud 
A. M. T rudeau, Jr.
E rnest N. M obial

1821 Orleans Avenue 
New Orleans 16, Louisiana

Constance B aker M otley 
T hurgood M arshall 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, N. Y.

Attorneys for Appellees



In  the

itnttpfc (Emtrt of Appeals
F oe the F ifth  Circuit

No. 18,521

L ouisiana State B oard of E ducation, 
R obert H. Curry, President, et al.,

—versus-
Appellants,

P riscilla A ngel, et al.,
Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

BRIEF FOR APPELLEES

Statement of the Case

The statement of the case which appears on pages 1-3 
of the Appellants’ Brief is not controverted; however, 
appellees believe that that statement is insufficient and must 
be supplemented by the following facts appearing in the 
record on appeal:

The order entered by the court below, from which appel­
lants appeal, enjoins appellants from:

“ . . . continuing to enforce a policy, practice, custom 
and usage of excluding plaintiffs and other qualified



2

Negro students from the following trade schools, solely 
because of their race and color: . . . ”

The five trade schools to which appellees sought admis­
sion were then named in the injunctive order (R. 76).

In support of their motion for summary judgment, 24 
appellees filed affidavits to the effect that each had been 
denied admission to the particular trade school to which 
he or she sought admission solely because of race and color 
(R. 49-74). In opposition thereto, appellants merely sub­
mitted the affidavit of the director of each institution to 
which appellees sought admission. These affidavits did 
not deny that appellees had been denied admission solely 
because of race and color. Each affidavit simply set forth, 
in the words thereof, “ . . . the method of determining a 
student’s admission . . .  ” , enumerated the tests given to 
applicants for admission, and described the procedure fol­
lowed with respect to new applicants (R. 32-40).

The complaint alleges that with respect to each of the 
five trade schools to which appellee sought admission, a 
statute of the State of Louisiana, which established each 
trade school, limited same to the education of the white 
people of the State of Louisiana (R. 10-12).

In their answer, appellants generally denied these allega­
tions (R. 22-26).

On this appeal, a single error is relied upon by appellants 
as ground for reversal of the judgment below, i.e., that a 
suit against a state agency cannot be maintained without 
its consent.



3

ARGUMENT

I.
Appellants’ contention that this case is a prohibited 

suit against the State of Louisiana is frivolous and wholly 
without merit.

The case of Louisiana State Board of Education, et ad., 
Appellants v. Samuel Allen, et at., Appellees, No. 18,522, 
is simultaneously on appeal to this Court from the same 
court below. Counsel for both parties in that case are the 
same as counsel for both parties in this case. Appellants 
in that case similarly urge that suit cannot be maintained 
against the Louisiana State Board of Education without 
its consent. The Louisiana State Board of Education is 
appellant in both of these cases. Therefore, in order to save 
the time of this Court, appellees will not repeat here the 
argument on this point which is made in the Allen case 
and which would be the same here. Appellees merely cite, 
at this point, the cases there cited, Orleans Parish School 
Board v. Bush, 242 F. 2d 156 (5th Cir. 1957); Board of 
Supervisors of L. S. U. v. Fleming, 265 F. 2d 736 (5th Cir. 
1959); Dorsey v. State Athletic Commission (E. D. La. 
1958), 168 F. Supp. 149, aff’d 359 U. S. 532 (1959), in 
support of appellees’ contention that appellants’ sole argu­
ment on this appeal is frivolous and wholly without merit, 
same being precluded by prior recent decisions of this 
Court and the U. S. Supreme Court.



4

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment below must
be affirmed.

Bespectfully submitted,

A. P. T ureaud 
A. M. T rudeau, Jr.
E rnest N. M orial

1821 Orleans Avenue 
New Orleans 16, Louisiana

Constance B aker M otley 
T hurgood M arshall 

10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, N. Y.

Attorneys for Appellees



30