Supreme Court Asked to Hold Special Session to Review Little Rock Bias Order

Press Release
June 26, 1958

Supreme Court Asked to Hold Special Session to Review Little Rock Bias Order preview

Cite this item

  • Press Releases, Loose Pages. Supreme Court Asked to Hold Special Session to Review Little Rock Bias Order, 1958. 98402c63-bc92-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/e5ab385c-dcaa-4f80-8f5a-36bfabe33676/supreme-court-asked-to-hold-special-session-to-review-little-rock-bias-order. Accessed July 30, 2025.

    Copied!

    P ROE S'S RUE LBA SE 

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York 19, N. Y. 

JU 6-8397 

June 26, 1958 

SUPREME COURT ASKED TO 
HOLD SPECIAL SESSION TO 

REVIEW LITTLE ROCK BIAS ORDER 

WASHINGTON, D. C., June 26--Attorneys for the Little Rock Negro high 

school students today asked the U. S. Supreme Court to hold a special 

session to review District Judge Harry J. Lemley's order of June 20 

suspending integration at the Central High School. 

The request for the special session was made in a petition filed 

this morning with the high court by Thurgood Marshall and Wiley A. 

Branton, attorneys for the Negro children. They seek immediate 

reversal of Judge Lemley's suspension order. 

In their petition, the attorneys charge that Judge Lemley erred 

in ruling that hostile incidents and community opposition were suf- 

ficient cause to postpone desegregation of the Little Rock public 

schools until 1961. 

They raised the question as to whether the Little Rock integratior 

plan, which was approved by a District Court, a Circuit Court of 

Appeals and in operation for a year, can be suspended solely “upon a 

showing of certain hostile incidents" and opposition of the local 

public to the Supreme Court decisions in the School Segregation Cases. 

The petition requested the following relief: 

"WHEREFORE, it is respectfully submitted that the 
decision is so clearly wrong and that the public interest 
in its early disposition so great that this Court should: 

"1. Advance the date on which respondents are re- 
quired to file their brief in opposition. 

"2. Grant the writ of certiorari before judgment 
by the Court of Appeals. 

"3, Either extend the present term of Court or 
order a special term of Court to be convened pursuant 
to Rule 3 to hear arguments and dispose of the case. 

"4, Reverse the judgment." 



-2- 

It was pointed out here, however, that in 168 years the Supreme 

Court has held special sessions only three times. The attorneys, 

nevertheless, are hopeful that the high court will review and rule on 

the case before the 1958-59 school term in order that the remaining 

seven Negro students at Central High can return in September. 

Other attorneys of record on the petition filed on behalf of the 

Negro children are Constance B. Motley, Jack Greenberg and Irma Feder 

of New York City. Mr. Marshall is Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal 

Defense and Educational Fund. Attorney Branton lives in Pine Bluff, 

Arkansas. 

—AR0s<

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

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.

Return to top