Gray v. Board of Trustees of University of Tennessee Ex parte Gray et al. o. 159 Misc. Argued Jan. 9— 10, 1952
| Decision Date | 03 March 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 120 and N,120 and N |
| Citation | 96 L.Ed. 540,72 S.Ct. 432,342 U.S. 517 |
| Parties | GRAY et al. v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE et al. Ex parte GRAY et al. o. 159 Misc. Argued Jan. 9—10, 1952 |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Robert L. Carter, Washington, D.C., for appellants and petitioners.
Mr. John J. Hooker, Nashville, Tenn., for Board of Trustees of University of Tennessee and others.
Appellants, on behalf of themselves and other Negroes 'similarly situated,' sued in the District Court to enjoin appellees from alleged violations of the Fourteenth Amendment in refusing to admit Negroes to the Univer- sity of Tennessee. A three-judge court, convened at appellants' request, held that this case was not within the jurisdiction of a three-judge court under 28 U.S.C. (Supp. IV) § 2281, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2281, and ordered that the case proceed before a single district judge. D.C., 100 F.Supp. 113. The single judge held that appellants were entitled to relief but did not enter an order. D.C., 97 F.Supp. 463.
Appellants contend that only a court of three judges has jurisdiction over the cause. No. 120 is an appeal from the order dissolving the three-judge court brought directly to this Court under 28 U.S.C. (Supp. IV) § 1253, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1253. We set the appeal down for argument, postponing consideration of jurisdictional questions. In No. 159 Misc., appellants asked, in the alternative, that we issue a writ of mandamus to vacate the order dissolving the three-judge court. We issued a rule to show cause why the petition for mandamus should not be granted, 342 U.S. 846, 72 S.Ct. 84, and, upon the filing of a response to the rule, set the petition down for argument with the appeal.
At the argument, counsel for appellees stated that appellants would be admitted to the University of Tennessee as requested. Thereafter, appellants filed a motion stating that appellant Gray has been admitted to the University and that the other appellants were, because of changed circumstances, unable to avail themselves of the opportunity at present. Appellants moved this Court to vacate the order dissolving the three-judge court and to remand the case to that court for further proceedings. Since appellants' requests for admission to the University of Tennessee have been granted and since there is no suggestion that any person 'similarly situated' will not be afforded similar treatment, appellants' motion is denied and the judgments below are vacated and the District Court is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Familias Unidas v. Briscoe
...v. Central Baptist Church of Miami, Florida, Inc., 404 U.S. 412, 92 S.Ct. 574, 30 L.Ed.2d 567 (1972); Gray v. Board of Trustees, 342 U.S. 517, 72 S.Ct. 432, 96 L.Ed. 540 (1952); Norman v. Connecticut State Board of Parole, 458 F.2d 497 (2 Cir. 1972); Watkins v. Chicago Housing Authority, 40......
-
MAGTAB PUBLISHING CORPORATION v. Howard
...Spark Plug Co. v. Reich, 8 Cir., 121 F.2d 769, certiorari denied 314 U.S. 669, 62 S.Ct. 130, 86 L.Ed. 535; Gray v. University of Tennessee, 342 U.S. 517, 72 S.Ct. 432, 96 L.Ed. 540; Brown v. Board of Trustees, 5 Cir., 187 F.2d ...
-
Dunkel v. Elkins
...that the act complained of will be repeated, the issues remain justiciable, * * *." Defendants rely on Gray v. Board of Trustees, 342 U.S. 517, 72 S.Ct. 432, 96 L.Ed. 540 (1952), and Watkins v. Chicago Housing Authority, 406 F.2d 1234 (7th Cir. 1969). Both actions were dismissed as moot. In......
-
Becket v. Marks
...Chicago Housing Authority, supra. The Supreme Court has itself held constitutional rights cases moot. See Gray v. Board of Trustees, 342 U.S. 517, 72 S.Ct. 432, 96 L.Ed. 540 (1952); Diffenderfer v. Central Baptist Church of Miami, Florida, Inc., 404 U.S. 412, 92 S.Ct. 574, 30 L.Ed.2d 567 (1......