Walker v. Brunswick County School Board, Virginia Reply Brief in Opposition to Writ of Certiorari
Public Court Documents
October 6, 1969

Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Walker v. Brunswick County School Board, Virginia Reply Brief in Opposition to Writ of Certiorari, 1969. 2d2fe72e-c89a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/d0a34439-7532-4923-ac5c-7204c5b6fe3f/walker-v-brunswick-county-school-board-virginia-reply-brief-in-opposition-to-writ-of-certiorari. Accessed April 22, 2025.
Copied!
r\I Supreme Court of the United Slates October Term, 1969 No. 824 AN G E LA W A L K E R , e tc ., et a l ., Petitioners.v. CO U N TY SCH OOL BO ARD OF BRU N SW ICK CO U N TY, V IR G IN IA , e t a l ., Respondents. PH EM IE D. H A W T H O R N E , e t c ., et a l ., Petitioners, CO U N TY SCH OOL BO ARD OF LU N EN BU RG COU N TY, VIRG IN IA , et a l ., Respondents. BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT F rederick T. G ra y Williams, Mullen and Christian 510 United Virginia Bank Building Richmond, Virginia 23219 Attorney for Respondents E m erson D. B a u g h Lawrenceville, Virginia 23868 Attorney for County School Board of Brunswick County, Va. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page P r e lim in a r y St a t e m e n t .......................................................................... 1 Q uestion P resented ................................................................................ 2 Arg u m en t ....................................................................................................... 2 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 4 TABLE OF CASES Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 ................................... 3 Felder v. Harnett County Board of Education, 409 F.2d 1070 __ 3 Supreme Court of the United States October Term, 1969 No. 824 A N G E LA W A L K E R , e t c ., e t a l ., Petitioners. v. CO U N TY SCH O OL BO ARD OF BR U N SW IC K CO U N TY, V IR G IN IA , e t a l ., Respondents. PH E M IE D. H A W T H O R N E , etc ., e t a l ., Petitioners, v. CO U N TY SCH OOL BO ARD OF LU N EN BU RG CO U N TY, V IR G IN IA , e t a l ., Respondents. BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT PRELIMINARY STATEMENT This brief is filed on behalf o f the respondents County School Board o f Brunswick County, Virginia and County 2 School Board o f Lunenburg County, Virginia, in opposi tion to the granting of the W rit o f Certiorari prayed for in the petition for the reason that the Court o f Appeals for the Fourth Circuit did not abuse its discretion in declining to allow double costs and counsel fees. QUESTION PRESENTED Respondents disagree to some extent with petitioner’s statement o f the question presented. Read literally their question would carry the connotation that both school boards were continuing to operate segregated school sys tems while prosecuting their appeals. Actually when these cases were presented to the Court o f Appeals both school boards had completed the 1968-69 school year and both had presented plans for total integration of their facilities for the 1969-70 school year and no stays were requested! ARGUMENT I. School Boards in southern states are today confronted with the unenviable task of seeking on one side to preserve public education, on another to obey the law which requires actions which in many instances are totally opposed by large segments o f the public, on another to preserve suf ficient “ political” support to assure the appropriation o f adequate funds to maintain the schools and finally to main tain an educational program adequate to meet the needs of the children. It is little short o f miraculous that they have been successful in so many localities. The petitioners here would have this court establish a precedent which would punish school boards for taking an action calculated to preserve public support for the system and thus enable the board to provide quality education for 3 the children whom the petitioner’s have claimed the right to represent. The respondents here were entitled to appeal as a matter o f right. To have failed or refused to do so would have destroyed their leadership in the schools in the communities involved and dealt a severe blow to the hopes of bringing about a successful transition. This was not the time to lose the leadership that the public respected and would follow if it would follow at al. In their brief petitioners rely upon Judge Sobeloff’s dis sent in Felder v. Harnett County Board of Education, 409 F.2d 1070 (4th Cir. 1969) but surely Judge Sobeloff must be credited with understanding his own dissent and he presided over the panel which denied the counsel fees and double costs in this case. W e do not urge here that this Court should not, in a proper case, review the action of a Court o f Appeals in declining to exercise its discretion to award counsel fees and double costs but we do submit that where, as here, the Ap pellants have not used the appeal as a means of delay, such relief is not appropriate and the action o f the Court o f Appeals should not be disturbed. It should be noted in passing that Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, could easily have been termed frivolous while it was before lower courts— the “ contentions had been foreclosed” (see petition p. 8 ) thus, the use o f a penalty to shut-off requests for review would be a danger ous precedent to establish and unless it can be shown that the appellate machinery is being abused to delay the oppos ing party double costs and attorneys’ fees should not be allowed. The heart o f petitioners’ case is contained in this state ment on page 10 o f the petition: 4 “ In short, these are not ordinary cases involving stub born litigants; these cases are part o f a pattern of resistance to integration, where the law and facts are perfectly clear but the school boards will not volun tarily take even the obvious step without litigating each point that might somehow be productive o f further delay.” The language is inappropriate. Here the school boards had filed plans for complete desegregation and had not applied for stays. It is, therefore, obvious that the motive o f delay was not present. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated it is submitted that the petitioners fail to present a case in which certiorari should be granted. Respectfully submitted, F red erick T. G ray Counsel for Respondents W il l ia m s , M u l l e n an d C h r is t ia n 510 United Virginia Bank Building Richmond, Virginia 23219 E m erson D . B au g h Counsel for County School Board of Brunswick County, Va. Lawrenceville, Virginia 23868