Turner v. City of Memphis, Tennessee, 84
| Decision Date | 26 March 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 84,84 |
| Citation | 82 S.Ct. 805,369 U.S. 350,7 L.Ed.2d 762 |
| Parties | Jesse TURNER, Appellant, v. CITY OF MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mrs. Constance Baker Motley, New York City, for appellant.
Frank B. Gianotti, Jr., Memphis, Tenn., for appellee, City of memphis.
John M. Heiskell, Memphis, Tenn., for appellees, Dobbs Houses, Inc., and W. S. Haverfield.
Appellant, a Negro refused nonsegregated service in the Memphis Municipal Airport restaurant operated by appellee Dobbs Houses, Inc., under a lease from appellee City of Memphis, instituted this action on behalf of himself and other Negroes similarly situated seeking an injunction against such discrimination. He rested jurisdiction upon 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343(3) and premised the cause of action upon 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. Although the complaint alleged that appellees acted under color of state law, it did not identify any particular state statutes or regulations being challenged. But appellees' answers, in addition to asserting that the restaurant was a private enterprise to which the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply, invoked Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 53—2120, 53—2121, and Regulation No. R—18(L). The statutes as now phrased authorize the Division of Hotel and Restaurant Inspection of the State Department of Conservation to issue 'such rules and regulations * * * as may be necessary pertaining to the safety and/or sanitation of hotels and restaurants * * *' and make violations of such regulations a misdemeanor. The regulation, promulgated by the Division, provides that 'Restaurants catering to both white and negro patrons should be arranged so that each race is properly segregated.' The answers also set up the lease agreement which provides, inter alia, that the leased premises are to be used 'only and exclusively for lawful pur- poses, and no part of the premises shall be used in any manner whatsoever for any purposes in violation of the laws of * * * the State of Tennessee * * *.' The City of Memphis alleged further that unless and until the regulation was declared unconstitutional, the city would be bound to object to desegregation of the restaurant by Dobbs Houses as a violation of Tennessee law and of the lease. Dobbs Houses alleged that desegregation by it of the restaurant would therefore subject it to forfeiture of the lease. Dobbs Houses later amended its answer to include a defense based on Tenn.Code Ann. § 62—710. That statute 'abrogates' Tennessee's common-law cause of action for exclusion from hotels or other public places, and declares that the operators of such establishments are free to exclude persons 'for any reason whatever.'
When the appellant moved for summary judgment before a single district judge, the appellees opposed the motion on the ground that the relief sought necessarily challenged the constitutionality of the state statutes and regulation so that under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281, 2284, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2281, 2284, a three-judge court was required. The single judge thereupon convened a three-judge court. Upon renewal by the appellant before that court of his motion for summary judgment, the appellees urged, and the three-judge court ordered, that appellant's suit should be held in abeyance pending a 'Declaratory Judgment suit to be brought by plaintiffs in the Tennessee Courts seeking an interpretation of the State statutes under consideration.' Appellant, being in doubt whether the case was one 'required * * * to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges,' in addition to appealing from the abstention order directly to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1253, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1253, also perfected a timely appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. We postponed consideration of the question of our jurisdiction of the direct appeal to the hearing on the merits. 368 U.S. 808, 82 S.Ct. 31, 7 L.Ed.2d 19.
Whether or not it may be said that appellant's complaint is to be read as seeking, under 28 U.S.C. § 2281, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2281, an 'injunction restraining the enforcement, operation or execution of (a) * * * State statute by restraining the action of any officer of such State in the enforcement or execution of such statute,' a question which we need not decide, it is clear for other reasons that a three-judge court was not required for the disposition of this case. Since, as was conceded by Dobbs Houses at the bar of this Court, the Dobbs Houses restaurant was subject to the strictures of the Fourteenth Amendment under Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715, 81 S.Ct. 856, 6 L.Ed.2d 45, the statutes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mulkey v. Reitman
...possible contention that such a statute * * * may stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.' (Turner v. City of Memphis (1962) 369 U.S. 350, 353, 82 S.Ct. 805, 7 L.Ed.2d 762. The instant case presents an undeniably analogous situation wherein the state, recognizing that it could not......
-
Epstein v. Lordi
...of constitutional provisions to which it is allegedly repugnant, a three judge Court is not required. Turner v. City of Memphis, 369 U.S. 350, 353, 82 S.Ct. 805, 7 L.Ed. 2d 762 (1961); Baily v. Patterson, 369 U.S. 31, 33, 82 S.Ct. 549, 7 L.Ed.2d 512 (1961) past cases had established the unc......
-
Mitchell v. Delaware Alcoholic Beverage Control Com'n
... ... and off Appellant's premises, located on the Delaware City-Port Penn Road, in Polktown, an area adjacent to the Town ... See Watson v. Memphis, post, p. 325 ... These cases just ... 715, 722, 81 S.Ct. 856, 860, 6 L.Ed.2d 45; Turner v. City of Memphis, 369 U.S. 350, 82 S.Ct. 805, 7 L.Ed.2d ... 714, 83 S.Ct. 1022, 10 L.Ed.2d 84 ... Since many of the references made in ... 24 [56 Del. 378] 24 ] The case involved a Tennessee Statute, authorizing a state official to issue 'rules and ... ...
-
Palmer v. Thompson
...454, 81 S.Ct. 182, 5 L.Ed.2d 206 (1960) (application of Interstate Commerce Act); Burton, supra, n. 1; Turner v. City of Memphis, 369 U.S. 350, 82 S.Ct. 805, 7 L.Ed.2d 762 (1962) (public restaurant in municipal airport); Johnson v. Virginia, 373 U.S. 61, 83 S.Ct. 1053, 10 L.Ed.2d 195 (1963)......
-
Federal Remedies for Sexual Discrimination Against Male Divorce Litigants
...Gunn v. University Committee to End the War in Vietnam, 399 U.S. 383, 90 S. Ct. 2013, 26 L. Ed. 2d 684 (1970); Turner v. City of Memphis, 369 U.S. 350, 82 S. Ct. 805, 7 L. Ed. 2d 762 (1962); Bailey v. Patterson, supra note 14. See also Hagans v. Levine, 415 U.S. 528, 94 S. Ct. 1372, 39 L. E......
-
Appellate courts as first responders: the constitutionality and propriety of appellate courts' resolving issues in the first instance.
...Id. at 444. (197) See id. at 440. (198) Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 121 (1976). (199) See id. (citing Turner v. City of Memphis, 369 U.S. 350 (1962)) (treating the appellant's jurisdictional statement as a petition for writ of certiorari prior to the judgment of the court of appeals, ......
-
The sedimentary Constitution.
...been] deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment."). (288) See, e.g., Turner v. City of Memphis, 369 U.S. 350 (1962) (airport restaurants and rest rooms); New Orleans City Park Improvement Ass'n v. Detiege, 358 U.S. 54 (1958) (city parks); Gayle v. B......
-
Appellate Practice and Procedure - K. Todd Butler
...v. Ingram Equip. Co., 918 F.2d 1491, 1495 (11th Cir. 1990) (en banc). 52. Iraola, 325 F.3d at 1284-85 (citing Turner v. City of Memphis, 369 U.S. 350, 353 (1962)). 53. Id. (citing Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U.S. 552, 557 (1941)). 54. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 (2000). 55. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b) (200......