3 minute read

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

Conclusion

Appellants recognize that the problems confronting this Court, as it turns to the implementation of its decision in these cases, are of primary magnitude. Their high seriousness is enhanced by the fact that sovereign states are in effect, though not formally, at the bar and that the evil to which the Court's decree must be directed is no transitory wrong but is of the essence of the social structure of a great section of our nation.

Yet, it should be borne in mind that the very magnitude of these problems exists because of the assumption, tacitly indulged up to now, that the Constitution is not to be applied in its full force and scope to all sections of this country alike, but rather that its guarantees are to be enjoyed, in one part of our nation, only as molded and modified by the desire and customs of the dominant component of the sectional population. Such a view, however expressed, ignores the minimum requirement for a truly national constitution. It ignores also a vast part of the reality of the sectional interest involved, for that interest must be composed of the legitimate aspirations of Negroes as well as whites. It certainly ignores the repercussions which any reluctance to forthrightly enforce appellants' rights would have on this nation's international relations. Every day of delay means that this country is failing to develop its full strength.

23 SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS, October 1, p. 14, c. 1, 5; Id., January 6, 1955, p. 2, c. 4–5.

24 SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS, September 3, 1954, p. 7, c. 3; Id., November 4, 1954, p. 16, c. 1; Id., December 1, 1954, p. 9, c. 1, 3.

25 SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS, February 3, 1955, p. 10, c. 1–2; Id., March 3, 1955, p. 16, c. 1; THE NEW YORK TIMES, April 6, 1955, p. 20, c. 5.

26 SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS, October 1, 1954, p. 11, c. 1; Id., December 1, 1954, p. 12, c. 4; NEW YORK POST, March 16, 1955, p. 58, c. 4.

27 SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS, September 3, 1954, p. 12, c. 1–2; Id., February 3, 1955, p. 3, c. 2–4, Id., March 3, 1955, p. 14, c. 1–3.

28 SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS, September 3, 1954, p. 8, c. 3; Id., October 1, 1954, p. 9, c. 4–5; Id., November 4, 1954, p. 11, c. 4–5; Id., January 6, 1955, p. 10, c. 1–2; THE NEW YORK TIMES, April 6, 1955, p. 20, c. 5.

29 SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS, February 3, 1955, p. 10, c. 4.

30 SOUTHERN SCHOOL NEWS, January 6, 1955, p. 6, c. 2.

31 Indeed, Governor Marvin B. Griffin of Georgia has asserted: "However, if this court is so unrealistic as to attempt to enforce this unthinkable evil upon us, I serve notice now that we shall resist it with all the resources at our disposal and we shall never submit to the proposition of mixing the races in the classrooms of our schools."

32 See, e.g., Steiner v. Simmons, 111 A. 2d 574 (Del. 1955), rev'g. 108 A. 2d 173 (Del. 1954). There the Supreme Court reversed a chancery court determination that forthwith desegregation was proper under the decision of this Court of May 17, 1954.

The time has come to end the division of one nation into those sections where the Constitution is and those where it is not fully respected. Only by forthright action can the country set on the road to a uniform amenability to its Constitution. Finally, the right asserted by these appellants is not the only one at stake. The fate of other great constitutional freedoms, whether secured by the Fourteenth Amendment or by other provisions, is inevitably bound up in the resolution to be made in these cases. For delay in enforcement of these rights invites the insidious prospect that a moratorium may equally be placed on the enjoyment of other constitutional rights.

In disposing of the great issues before it, this Court should do no less than order the abolition of racial segregation in public education by a day certain, as heretofore set forth in Appellants' Brief on Further Reargument.

Respectively submitted,
CHARLES L. BLACK JR.,
ELWOOD H. CHISOLM,
WILLIAM T. COLEMAN JR.,
CHARLES T. DUNCAN,
GEORGE E. C. HAYES,
LOREN MILLER,
WILLIAM R. MING JR.,
CONSTANCE BAKER MOTLEY,
JAMES M. NABRIT JR.,
LOUIS H. POLLAK,
FRANK D. REEVES,
JOHN SCOTT,
JACK B. WEINSTEIN, of Counsel. HAROLD BOULWARE,
ROBERT L. CARTER,
JACK GREENBERG,
OLIVER W. HILL,
THURGOOD MARSHALL,
LOUIS L. REDDING,
SPOTTSWOOD W. ROBINSON III,
CHARLES S. SCOTT, Attorneys for Appellants in Nos. 1, 2, 3 and for Respondents in No. 5.

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