U.S. Supreme Court Upsets Sit In Convictions of 77

Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.

Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:

For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):

Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.

LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.

If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.

NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.

Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.

I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.

If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at .

Collection
- Press Releases
Creator
- LDF
Taxonomy
Identifier
- 819759f8-b492-ee11-be37-00224827e97b

Cite this item

Press Releases, Volume 1. U.S. Supreme Court Upsets Sit In Convictions of 77, 1964. 819759f8-b492-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/f6f7c4fc-73b8-4e31-bc53-fdb34997f02c/us-supreme-court-upsets-sit-in-convictions-of-77. Accessed November 23, 2025.

Copied!

    \ 10 Columbus Circle 
cava New York, N.Y. 10019 

JUdson 6-8397 

NAACP o> 

tecal Defense and Educational F und . 
PRESS RELEASE 
President 

Dr. Allan) Knight Chalmers June 24, 1964 
Director-Counsel 

Jack Greenberg 
Associate Counsel 

Coustanice Baker Metley , 

U.S, SUPREME COURT UPSETS 
SIT IN CONVICTIONS OF 77 ty 

WASHINGTON, D.C.--The convictions of 77 peaceful sit-in dem- 

onstrators were voided here this week by the U.S. Supreme 

Court, ruling on ten cases originating in five southern 

states, 

The high court based its decisions on various grounds in 

acting on the appeals in ten separate cases, seven of them 

brought by Legal Defense Fund lawyers. Fund attorneys as- 

ii
 
wh
aa
g 

sisted in the other three, 

It was the fourth consecutive year that Defense Fund ac- 

“tions led to legal victories in the Supreme Court vindicating 

ene efforts of Negroes to obtain non-discriminatory service 

in facilities open to the public. 

According to Fund Director-Counsel Jack Grenberg, this 

week's decisions will lead to the voiding of hundreds of sit- 

in convictions now pending on appeal, The Civil Rights Act 

of 1964 will guarantee service in places of public accommo- 

eons in the future, Mr. Greenberg added. 

Among the grounds for its decisions in upsetting the sit-in 

RB ivictions, the high court held: 

*that Maryland courts should re-examine one case in light 

of subsequent passage of state public accommodations laws; 

*that South Carolina students had no fair warning that the 

trespass law applied.to failure to leave upon request; 

*that there was no evidence, in the case of five other South 

Carolina students, of breach of the peace; 

*that Florida's policy of segregation was embodied in a 

rule requiring restaurants to have separate washrooms. 

(more) 
Jesse DeVore, Jr., Director of Public Information—Night Number 212 Riverside 9-8487 Ss 



U.S. Supreme Court Upsets -2- June 24, 1964 
Sit-in Convictions of 77 

The Supreme Court also agreed to hear next term Legal 

Jefense Fund appeals on behalf of 14 more sit-in defendants 

rom South Carolina and Arkansas. 

This week's court actions were the last until the nine 

In addition to securing vic- 

o*a ruling that school desegregation in the south must pro- “ee 

ceed at a faster rate, and that Atlanta's grade- asyear and 

pupil- rassignment plans are insufficient; sa 

*a ruling that Negroes are ompaeeed to courteous treatment 

in Fouthern courtrooms, and nay not be addressed by their 

fittet names; ¢ . 

*an affirmation of the principle that criminal convictions 

7 y by juries from which Negroes have been sytematically ex- 

¥a ~ § ae are unconstitutional; 2 

*a refusal to review a lower court decision outlawing 

discrimination against Negro physicians and patients in 

publicly supported hospitals; 

*a judgment reversing the convictions of 438 Negro students ~ 

arrested while peacefully demonstrating against discrimi- 

nation in Orangeburg and Rock Hill, S.C. 

In all, the Legal Defense Fund took part in 26 actions in s 

the Supreme Court this term, more than any other organtzatianie 

- 30 -

Copyright notice

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.

U.S. Supreme Court Upsets Sit In Convictions of 77

Collection

Creator

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in