Ludley v. Board of Supervisors of LSU, Civ. A. No. 1833
| Decision Date | 15 April 1957 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 1833,1837.,1836 |
| Citation | 150 F. Supp. 900 |
| Parties | Arnease LUDLEY, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF L. S. U., etc., et al., Defendants. Jack BAILEY et al., Plaintiffs, v. LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Defendants. Alma LARK et al., Plaintiffs, v. LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
A. P. Tureaud, New Orleans, La., Robert L. Carter, New York City, for plaintiffs.
L. W. Brooks, Jack Gremillion, Baton Rouge, La., George Ponder, New Orleans, La., for defendants.
Before CHRISTENBERRY, Chief Judge, and WRIGHT, District Judge.
This litigation concerns another attempt by the Louisiana Legislature to preserve, by law, segregation in the educational institutions of the state. This attempt, while more subtle than its predecessor,1 nevertheless fails because the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution "nullifies sophisticated as well as simple-minded modes of discrimination." Lane v. Wilson, 307 U.S. 268, 275, 59 S.Ct. 872, 876, 83 L.Ed. 1281.
The plaintiffs in these three class actions2 are now attending various state institutions of higher learning in Louisiana under temporary restraining orders issued by this court.3 The authorities of these institutions had indicated that the plaintiffs, and all Negroes similarly situated, would be refused registration unless they presented the certificate of eligibility and good moral character signed by their former principals and superintendents as required by Act 15 of 19564 of the Louisiana Legislature. Plaintiffs have been unable to obtain the certificate because Act 249 of 19565 by the same legislature provides, in effect, that the principals and superintendents will lose their jobs if they sign the certificates.
Plaintiffs, in these proceedings seeking declaratory judgments and injunctive relief, attack the constitutionality of Act 15 of 1956 as well as Act 249 of the same year. Act 15, in pertinent part, provides that "No person shall be registered at or admitted to any publicly financed institution of higher learning of this state unless he or she shall have first filed with said institution a certificate addressed to the particular institution sought to be entered attesting to his or her eligibility and good moral character." The certificate "must be signed by the Superintendent of Education of the Parish, County, or Municipality wherein said applicant graduated from High School, and by the principal of the High School from which he graduated." Act 249 of 1956, in pertinent part, provides that "A permanent teacher shall not be removed from office except upon written and signed charges of * * * advocating or in any manner performing any act toward bringing about integration of the races within the public school system or any public institution of higher learning of the State of Louisiana * * *." Plaintiffs contend that it was the plan of the Louisiana Legislature in passing Acts 15 and 249 of 1956 to prevent the registration of Negroes at institutions designated by it as exclusively for white students by jeopardizing the job of any principal or superintendent who certified eligibility of any Negroes for such institutions.
Defendants contend that Acts 15 and 249 of 1956 are entirely unrelated and must be considered separately. They admit that while there may be some question as to the constitutionality of Act 249, they earnestly contend that there can be no question as to Act 15, which, they say, merely requires a certificate of good character before a student may enter an institution of higher learning in the state. Defendants have also moved to dismiss on the grounds that the case is one for three judges and that the defendants, being state agencies, are immune from suit. These latter contentions were rejected in Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, 138 F.Supp. 336, 337, affirmed 5 Cir., 242 F.2d 156; Id., 351 U.S. 948, 76 S.Ct. 854,6 and need not be considered further here.
Since the constitutionality of the two statutes in suit will depend, at least to some extent, on the intention of the Legislature which enacted them, we turn to that consideration. The Louisiana Legislature at its regular session in 1956, without a dissenting vote in either the Senate or House of Representatives, passed thirteen acts designed to maintain separation of the races in schools, in parks and playgrounds, in athletic events, in toilet, eating and drinking facilities, and in waiting rooms for passengers in intrastate commerce. Two of the measures proposed amendments to the State Constitution, the first preventing suits against agencies of the state, such as school boards, without consent of the Legislature, and the second proposing various barriers to voting registration.
This segregation legislation was sponsored by the Joint Legislative Committee on segregation. This Committee was supported during the fiscal year 1955-56 on moneys received from the Board of Liquidation of the State Debt. In his application to the Board for the allotment of the money for the Committee, the Chairman of the Joint Legislative Committee wrote:
(Resolution No. VII, Appropriation No. V, Board of Liquidation of the State Debt, July 7, 1955.)
In addition to this statement by the Chairman of Joint Legislative Committee on segregation, respecting the purpose of segregation legislation generally, there are various other statements7 referred to in 17 La.L.Rev. 112, indicating that the specific purpose of the two acts in suit is to prevent the registration of Negroes at institutions of higher learning in the state designated as exclusively for white students. These statements show beyond question that it was the intention of the Legislature that any teacher who signs a certificate for a Negro student to go to a white school will sacrifice his tenure.
The legislation has operated in practice pursuant to the intentions of its authors. Not a single principal of a public school or superintendent of a public school system has signed a certificate for a Negro to go to a white school. The combined effect, therefore, of the legislation in suit, Acts 15 and 249 of 1956, is the same as if the Legislature had simply provided, as it did in 1954, "All public * * * schools in the State of Louisiana shall be operated separately for white and colored children."8 The fact that a transparent device is used, calculated to effect this same result, does not make the legislation less unconstitutional. Lane v. Wilson, supra; Guinn v. United States, 238 U.S. 347, 35 S.Ct. 926, 59 L.Ed. 1340.
The defendants' earnest suggestion that, irrespective of the constitutionality of Act 249, Act 15 of 1956, merely requiring a certificate of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. Godwin
...adopted the requirement a few months after Brown v. Board of Education was decided." (At 702) In Ludley v. Board of Supervisors Louisiana State University, 150 F.Supp. 900 (E.D.La.), aff'd 252 F.2d 378 (5th Cir.) 1958, cert. den. 358 U.S. 819, 79 S.Ct. 31, 3 L.Ed.2d 61, a statute was invali......
-
Knight v. State of Ala.
...on notice that the alumni recommendation procedure was unconstitutional since at least 1958, when Ludley v. Board of Supervisors, Louisiana State University, 150 F.Supp. 900 (E.D.La. 1957), aff'd, 252 F.2d 372 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 819, 79 S.Ct. 31, 3 L.Ed.2d 61 (1958), was dec......
-
United States v. State of Mississippi, Civ. A. No. 3312.
...from Mississippi white persons. Meredith v. Fair, 5 Cir., 1962, 298 F.2d 696, 701-702; and see also Ludley v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University, E.D.La., 150 F.Supp. 900, aff'd, 5 Cir., 252 F.2d 372, cert. denied, 1958, 358 U.S. 819, 79 S.Ct. 31, 3 L.Ed.2d 61. And certainly......
-
Guillory v. Administrators of Tulane University of La., Civ. A. No. 11484-B.
...of Supervisors of La. State U., etc. v. Tureaud, 5 Cir., 225 F.2d 434, opinion reinstated, 228 F.2d 895; Ludley v. Board of Supervisors of L. S. U., E.D. La., 150 F.Supp. 900, aff'd, 5 Cir., 252 F. 2d 10 Jefferson, letter to Whythe, August 13, 1786, in I Writings (Bergh ed., 1907), p. 396. ......