Jordan v. University of Tennessee Brief in Opposition

    In the

(Emtrf of %  Ituleii States
O ctober T erm , 1978 

No. 78-1162

P eter  J ordan, et al,,

v .

Petitioners,

U n iversity  op T e n n e s s e e ; B oard op R eg en ts , S tate U n i­
versity  and Co m m u n ity  C ollege S y stem , T e n n e s s e e ; 
T e n n essee  H ig h e r  E ducation  C o m m issio n ; R ita  S a n ­
ders G eier , et a l . ;  U n ited  S tates op A m e r ic a ; R aymond 
R ichardson , J r., et al.

ON PE T IT IO N  POR A W R IT  OP CERTIORARI TO T H E  

U N ITE D  STATES COURT OP APPEALS 

POR T H E  SIX TH  CIRCUIT

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION

J ack G reenberg  
J am es M. N abrit, III 
B il l  L a n n  L e e  

Suite 2030 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

A von N. W illia m s , J r.
1414 Parkway Towers
404 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, Tennessee 37219

Attorneys for Raymond Richardson, Jr., et al.



IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

October Term, 1978 
No. 78-1162

PETER JORDAN, et a!. ,

Petitioners,

v.

UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE; BOARD 
OF REGENTS, STATE UNIVERSITY AND 
COMMUNITY COLLEGE SYSTEM, TENNESSEE; 
TENNESSEE HIGHER EDUCATION COMMIS­
SION; RITA SANDERS GEIER, et al; 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; RAYMOND 
RICHARDSON, JR., et al.

On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To 
The United States Court of Appeals 

For The Sixth Circuit

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION

Raymond Richardson, Jr., et al., plaintiffs- 
intervenors below, respectfully request that the 
petition for a writ of certiorari to review the 
opinion of the Sixth Circuit be denied.



2

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether denial of intervention pursuant to 
Rule 24(a) and (b), Fed. R. Civ. Pro., was an 
abuse of discretion?

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This civil rights class action to desegregate 
the public higher education system in the St ate of 
Tennessee was filed by black students, faculty 
members and citizens in May 1968. Geier v . 
Blanton, 427 F.Supp. 644, 645 (M.D. Tenn. 1977). 
The United States and additional black students, 
faculty and administrators intervened in the 
action in 1968 and 1972 respectfully, and the 
action has been vigorously 1itigated since. 427
F.Supp. at 645-650. On January 31, 1977, the 
district court held, inter alia, that the dual 
system imposed by law remained undismant1ed, and 
that the traditionally black public higher educa­
tion institution in Nashville, Tennessee (Tennes­
see State University) and a traditionally white 
public higher education institution in the same 
city (the University of Tennessee at Nashville) 
should be merged. 427 F .Supp. at 657-661. The



3

district court required that state defendants 
establish administrative procedures to develop an 
appropriate desegregation plan. 427 F.Supp. at 
661-662.

Petitioners Peter Jordan, et al. , white 
faculty members of the University of Tennessee at 
Nashville, sought intervent ion in order to present 
a plan of merger of the two institutions between 
the date of the district court ' s op inion of 
January 31, 1977, and the judgment of February 28, 
1977. Intervention was denied as untimely and 
unnecessary. Pet. 15-17. The court of appeals 
affirmed. Pet. 13-14.

ARGUMENT

1. The two courts below did not abuse their 
discretion by declining to grant intervent ion. 
Petitioners' motion to intervene was filed 9 years 
after the action was originally filed, 5 years 
after state defendant s were first ordered to 
consider the the feasibility of merger, several 
months after 30 days of trial on whether merger 
was an appropriate remedy, and only after the 
district court had already ordered defendants



-  4  -

to establish administrative procedures to develop 
a merger plan. See, 427 F.Supp. at 645-659. 
Intervention was clearly untimely under all the 
circumstances. NAACP v. New York, 413 U „S . 345, 
364-366 (1973). In addition, both the district 
court and court of appeals expressly found inter­
vent ion unnecessary in light of administrative 
procedures available to petitioners to advance 
their views on merger. Pet. 14, 16-17. Peti­
tioners thus have suffered no prejudice.

2, The petition presents no significant or 
important questions requiring review. There 
simply is no conflict with any authority in light 
of the findings that delay was inexcusable and 
that alternative procedures for petitioners to 
express their interests are available. Pet 
16-17.



-  5 -

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should 
be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

JACK GREENBERG 
JAMES M, NABRIT, III 
BILL LANN LEE

Suite 2030
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019

AVON N. WILLIAMS, JR.
1414 Parkway Towers
404 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, Tennessee 37219

Attorneys for Raymond Richardson,
Jr., et al.



MEHEN PRESS INC. —  N. Y. C. 219