1 minute read

Reply Brief for Appellants in Nos. 2 (1,) and 3 and for Respondents in No. on Further Reargument (5 )

Table Of Contents


Briefs filed by appellees and state Attorneys General do not offer any affirmative plan for desegregation but are merely restatements of arguments in favor of interminable continuation of racial segregation

Opinion polls are immaterial to the issues herein and do not afford any basis to support an argument that a gradual adjustment would be more effective

The wide applicability of the decision in these cases should not affect the relief to which appellants are entitled

Average differences in student groups have no relevance to the individual rights of pupils: individual differences can be handled administratively without reference to race

Official reactions in states affected by the May 17th decision make it plain that delay will detract from rather than contribute to the "effectiveness" of the transition to desegregated schools


The briefs filed on this reargument by appellees and amici curiae (with the exception of those in Nos. 1 and 5, and the brief filed on behalf of the Attorney General of The United States) are similar in substance despite some differences in details. Our reply to them can, therefore, be made in one joint brief.

1 Brief for Appellants in Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and for Respondents in No. 5 on Further Reargument, 1954 Term, p. 31.

Additional topics

Law Library - American Law and Legal InformationNotable Trials and Court Cases - 1954 to 1962Reply Brief for Appellants in Nos. 2 (1,) and 3 and for Respondents in No. on Further Reargument (5 ) - In The Supreme Court Of The United States October Term, 1954, Appeals From The United States District Courts For The District Of Kansas, The Eastern Di