Memorandum re: LDF Argues Martin Luther King Contempt Case in the U.S. Supreme Court

    "Fron. Francis E. Rivers 
PRESS RELEASE Director-Counsel 

egal fefense und Jack Greenberg 
Director, Public Relations 

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. FOR RELEASE Joan DeVore Ii. 
10 Columbus Circle, New York, N.Y. 10019 + JUdson 6.8397 MARCH 13 2/or 14, 196 7H NUMBER 212-709-8487 

’ 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: Washington Working Press 

RE: LEGAL DEFENSE FUND ARGUES 
MARTIN KING CONTEMPT CASE 
IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT 

CASE TITLE: WALKER vy, CITY OF BIRMINGHAM 

DATE: March 13 and/or 14, 1967 

QUESTION PRESENTED: Do the contempt convictions of Revs. Martin 
Luther King, Wyatt Tee Walker, and six other 
Negro ministers for alleged disobedience of an 
injunction, violate the First Amendment and due 
process and equal protection clauses of the 
Fourteenth Amendment? 

PER: Jesse DeVore, Director of Public Information 

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) attorneys will 
ask for reversal of an Alabama Supreme Court ruling that held that 
Dr, Martin Luther King and his associates might be punished for alleg- 
edly disobeying an injunction issued to prohibit demonstration marches, 
The marches were held in April 1963 and led to Congressional passage 
of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. 

The attorneys attack the convictions on numerous grounds: 

* They argue that there was no violation of the court order 
against “unlawful demonstrations" because the demonstrations 
violated no valid laws. 

* They also contend that Birmingham's parade permit law is uncon- 
stitutional, that Alabama's Court of Appeals has agreed that the 
Birmingham law is void in another case involving the same 
incidents. 

* * They stress that Rev. King and his associates may not be pun- 
ished for failing to obtain permits under this law. 

They argue that the Supreme Court ruling in the famous contempt 
conviction of the late John L. Lewis, former president of the United 
Mine Workers, saying that invalid court injunctions must be obeyed, 
should not be applied to cases involving unconstitutional orders 
infringing free speech and expression, 

The United States Department of Justice, which prosecuted Lewis, 
has filed a friend of the court brief and will orally argue, supporting 
Rev. King's position, 

Rev. King's case grew out of the famous Good Friday and Easter 
“Sunday 1963 demonstrations of the Southern Christian Leadership 
Conference and the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights in 
Birmingham, Alabama, 

The convicted ministers, in addition to Rev, King, include Rev. 
Ralph Abernathy, Rev, Wyatt Tee Walker, Rev. A, D, King (»rother of 

(more) 



ie 
ZB 
LEGAL DEFENSE FUND ARGUES 
MARTIN KING CONTEMPT CASE 
IN THE U.S, SUPREME COURT -2- March 13,14, 1967 

Dr. King), Rev. Fred L, Shuttlesworth; also Rev. J. W. Hayes, Rev, T.L. 
Fisher, and Rev, J. T. Porter. 

Seven other defendants, including Dr, King's aides, Rev. Andrew J. 
Young, and Rev. James Bevel, were freed by the Alabama courts. 

LDF attorneys will argue that Birmingham civil rights leaders did 
attempt to secure parade permits prior to beginning demonstrations, | 
and that these were denied by former City Commissioner Eugene "Bull 
Connor. 

However, Commissioner Connor then obtained the restraining order 
forbidding demonstrations without notice to the defendants or any 
hearing in court, 

The Negroes continued to march in protest of Birmingham's rigid 
segregation codes. 

The leaders were found in contempt of court and sentenced to five 
days in jail and fined $50.00 by the local circuit court in 1963, 

The Alabama Supreme Court kept the case under advisement from 1963 
until December 9, 1965, 

The case will be argued orally for Rev. King by Jack Greenberg, 
LDF director-counsel, 

=30= 

EDITOR'S NOTE: Dr. King's position: Some reporters have designated 
civil disobedience as the prime issue in this case. Dr. King takes 
the position that he acted in obedience to the Constitution. 

Dr. King issued the following statement in April 1963 defining 
his position at the time: 

", . . In the past we have abided by Federal injunctions out 
of respect for the forthright and consistent leadership that 
the Fed 1-3 has given in establishing the principle 
of integration as 2 law of the land, 

"However we are now confronted with recalcitrant forces 
in the Deep South that will use the courts to perpetuate the 
unjust and illegal system of racial separation. 

"Alabama has made clear its determination to defy the 
law of the lard. Most of its public officials, its legis- 
lative body and many of its law enforcement agents have 
openly defied the desegregation decision of the Supreme Court, 

"We would feel morally and legal responsible to obey 
the injunction if the courts of Alabama appiied equal jus- 
tice to all of its citizens. This would be sameness made 
legal. However the issuance of this injunction is a 
blatant [example] of difference made ieqal. 

"Southern law enforcement agencies have demonstrated 
now and again that they will utilize the force of law to 
misuse the judicial process." 

NOTE REGARDING IDENTIFICATION OF THE NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE FUND: The 

Legal Defense Fund is an independent organization, founded in 1939, 
Which is the legal arm of the civil rights movement. It was headed 

| until 1961 by Thurgood Marshall (now Solicitor General of the United 
a States) who was succeeded by Jack Greenberg. The LDF brought the 1954 

pupreme Court School Segregation cases. It has had more cases in the 
Upreme Court than any law office except the U,S. Department of Justice 

P e-Lt represents all erganizations with hanafide civil rights claims and 
many Ridividuals with no organizational affiliation,