Appeals Court Upholds Ruling to Outlaw Urban Renewal Bias

Press Release
September 26, 1964

Appeals Court Upholds Ruling to Outlaw Urban Renewal Bias preview

Circuit Ct. of Appeals Upholds Ruling on Nashville Urban Renewal Motel

Cite this item

  • Press Releases, Volume 1. Appeals Court Upholds Ruling to Outlaw Urban Renewal Bias, 1964. a0d5634e-b592-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/f093cc6f-6dea-430f-8288-5833ceb8748f/appeals-court-upholds-ruling-to-outlaw-urban-renewal-bias. Accessed October 08, 2025.

    Copied!

    10 Columbus Circle 
New York, N.Y. 10019 
JUdson 6-8397 

NAACP 

Legal Defense and Educational Fund 
PRESS RELEASE 
President 

Dr. Allan Knight Chalmers 

Director-Counsel FOR RELEASE 

Jack Greenberg Saturday 
Associate Counsel September 26, 1964 

Constance Baker Motley 

APPEALS COURT UPHOLDS RULING 
TO OUTLAW URBAN RENEWAL BIAS 

CINCINNATI---The U.S. Court of Appeals this week ruled that a 

Nashville motel must accept Negroes. 

The case has direct implications for all Urban Renewal 

programs, built before 1962, which exclude Negroes. 

Attorneys of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund won this action. 

The Holiday Inn Motel, which refused Negroes in Nashville, 

Tenn., was built on land cleared, in part (two thirds) with 

federal funds, as part of Nashville's urban renewal program. 

Acting under Tennessee laws, the Nashville Housing 

Authority "condemned or purchased the 72 acres of land needed 

for the project" (the Capital Hill Redevelopment Project). 

They then “relocated 301 families and 196 individuals," 

the Court of Appeals pointed out. 

Of the families moved out, 288 were Negroes as were 180 of 

the individuals moved. Subsequently Holiday Inns of America, 

Inc. purchased its property. 

The Court fOr Une pointed out that the Motel was conceived 

by the Capital Hill Redevelopment Project, "its creation was 

made possible by the execution of the project, and its existence 

is now governed to a great degree by the project's predetermined 

design and controls." 

The judicial order comes as a complement to the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964, which does not specifically cover housing among its 

provisions, although it does cover motels. 

The court waited before deciding this case to see whether 

the Motel would voluntarily comply after Congress passed the new 

rights legislation. 

The suit was filed by Dr. Vasco A. Smith, Jr. a Negro dentist 

from Memphis who was refused a room on December 4, 1962, 

Jesse DeVore, Jr.. Director of Public Information—Night Number 212 Riverside 9-8487 Se 



Appeals Court Upholds Ruling September 26, 1964 
To Outlaw Urban Renewal Bias -.2 - 

Jack Greenberg, director-counsel of the Fund, said that 

"the implications of the decision are vast for all the urban 

renewal projects constructed before President Kennedy's 1962 

executive order banning racial discrimination in federally 

supported housing," 

"This decision also makes specific judicial relief available 

in instances of discrimination by urban renewal projects built 

since the Presidential order." 

"It will affect rental housing, homes for sale, commercial 

property, and every other facility which has been built with 

urban renewal aid," the Legal Defense Fund's chief counsel said. 

The Sixth Circuit decision, a unanimous three-judge ruling, 

went to great lengths in detailing the extent of federal and 

state participation in, and financial support of, the urban 

renewal project, 

The Motel was built on land acquired from the Nashville 

Housing Authority in 1958 and 1959. The Authority had conceived 

the project in 1952, and condemned the redevelopment area, which 

at the time was 90% owned or occupied by Negroes. 

Joining Mr. Greenberg on the case were Fund cooperating 

attorneys Avon N. Williams and Z, Alexander Looby of Nashville, 

and A.W, Willis of Memphis; in addition, Constance Baker Motley 

and Frank H. Heffron of the Fund's New York City headquarters. 



NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE FUND. -3- September 26, 1964 
Add 3 

NE SEGREGATIONISTS 
U.S. DISTRICP JUDGE 

First i Rights Act 

JACKSONVILLE---Seventren restaurants and motels were ordered to 

accept Negze patrois in an order signed by U.S. District Judge 

Bryan V. Simpson here this week, 

three months of intensive work 

by at 

‘oined Holsiéed “toss” Manucy, staunch 

segregationist and th2 Ancient City Gun Club, from interfering 

with the business establishments or Negroes seeking service. 

Most of the res ats involved im the.court Section had 

voluntarily complied with the Public Accommodations section of 

the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Legal Defense Fund attorneys sought 

court action when pressure and threats from segregationists in 

St. Augustine, however, forced them to re-segregate their 

facilities. 

Judge Simpson further ruled that the Legal Defense Fund 

attorneys would normally be entitled to an attorney's fee of 

$7,000 under the Civil Rights Act. However, since this was a 

test case, he exercised his discretion and did not award the fee 

at the present time, 

But the judge clearly implied that fees would be granted in 

future cases of this sort. Earlier in the summer, Judge Simpson 

awarded fees to Legal Defense Fund lawyers when holding one 

restaurant which was bound by the injunction and a deputized 

citizen in contempt for failing to comply with the court order. 

In addition, Judge Simpson entered an order requiring the 

Ancient City Gun Club--the staunchest foes of integration in 

St, Augustine--to divulge the names and addresses of all of its 

members within 15 days. 

Six other Fund cases pending in St. Augustine are expected 

to be settled quickly. Following the permanent injunctions, 

two more motels voluntarily agreed to desegregate, and the other 

establishments will most likely follww suit. 

NAACP Legal Defense Fund lawyers Leroy D, Clark, of New York, 

and cooperating attorneys Earl M, Johnson o&€-Tackes:-tlle and 

Tobias Simon of Miami handled the St. Augustine matter. 

¥

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.