NAACP Legal Defense Fund Intervenes in Rights Act Test by Alabama Citizen
Press Release
October 2, 1964
Cite this item
-
Press Releases, Volume 1. NAACP Legal Defense Fund Intervenes in Rights Act Test by Alabama Citizen, 1964. 56d6634e-b592-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/d75e1b4c-9942-479e-92dc-4352189760fe/naacp-legal-defense-fund-intervenes-in-rights-act-test-by-alabama-citizen. Accessed December 04, 2025.
Copied!
10 Columbus Circle
New York, N.Y. 10019
JUdson 6-8397
NAACP
Legal Defense and Educational Fund
PRESS RELEASE
Oe Allan Knight Chalmers
Director-Counsel
Jack Greenberg
Associate Counsel FOR RELEASE
Constance Baker Motley Friday
ss
October 2, 1964
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE FUND
INTERVENES IN RIGHTS ACT
TEST BY ALABAMA CITIZEN
WASHINGTON--The U.S. Supreme Court was asked to strike down an
Alabama District Court ruling which said the public accommodations
section of the Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional.
Attorneys of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund today filed an
amicus curiaw brief in the Justice Department's case against
Ollie McClung, Sr., Birmingham restaurant owner.
The Alabama District Court asserted that the public
accommodations section of the Act is an exercise of "naked power"
by the Congress which is unsanctioned by the Constitution.
Jack Greenberg, director counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense
Fund, and his associates assert that Congress did have the power
to enact the law being questioned.
They added that Mr. McClung's attack on the Civil Rights Act
presents danget in that. "the.fotcge and effettiveness-of the-Act
may be weakened, even temporarily, by a restrictive construction."
"Even an inadvertent or implied restriction on the coverage of
the Act could cripple it immeasurably." Mr. Greenberg asserts, by
undermining the pattern of voluntary compliance which has
emerged in many localities as well as by its effect on enforcement
proceedings in many lower courts."
The Legal Defense Fund's brief stressed three reasons as to
why "Ollie's Barbecue" falls under the Civil Rights Act:
*It is a place of public accommodation within the Act in
that it ‘offers to serve interstate travelers."
*Mr. McClung failed to establish that he does not actually
serve interstate travelers. “The most logical inference
from the record is that he does," the Fund's brief states.
*The evidence concerning this restaurant establishes that a
substantial portion of the food which "Ollie's Barbecue”
services has moved in commerce.
The Fund, in filing its amicus brief, pointed out that it
has been, for many years, “the principal organization regularly
representing Negro citizens claiming denials of equal protection
of the laws, due process of law, and other’ rights secured by the x
Constitution.” ‘
Mr. Greenberg was joined by Fund attorneys Constance Baker
Motley, Associate Counsel, and James M. Nabrit, III, Assistant ;
Counsel. Charles L. Black, Jr. of New Haven, «Connecticut was -
of counsel. & .
= 60:<
Jesse DeVore, Jr., Director of Public Information—Night Number 212 Rlverside 9-8487 <P> SO