# Jurisdictional Statement — Tancil v. Woolls > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385001_0549%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Jurisdictional Statement - **Published:** January 1, 1964 - **Citation:** 379 U.S. 19 ## Text aff ae | : | Mthice Supreme Court, U.S. . : i * on _* & : 86 FILED paver” of . No- 8 -AUG°14 Lae oF * ) ne ee . as | LJOHNF, DAVIS, CLERK | IN THE Os . re a | Supreme Court of the Auited States OcroBeR TERM, 1964 ‘. ns ‘ . (in. abys. Quaxpen Taxgu and BARBARA -FACKSON Pia ILIIAMS, ippellants - ; _— . P v. - Winniam P. Woorts and Fraxkun 0. Backus, Judges ee of the Corporation Court of the: City of Alexan- 3 dria. Virginia, uppelees ie i On haowe from the United States District Court © “3 -for the Eastern District of Virginia ~ « JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ALLiso’ W. brows, Jr. Suite 75 - . 1OOG Connectreut Avenue, No W. Washington 6. DO, “Orro LL. PeeKken 1 Princess Street Alexandrin, “Virginfa Alforneys for Appellants -°@ Press or Byron S. ADAMS, Wasninetox, D C eye, = ° 2 _ INDEXs | Get es Page + ATED sJuacknactesnbawachunxendsanacnans Te — Jurisdiction .......... Leng eines Deinetcads esas 2. Question presented ........ ebigipew weer be eeeeee es Statutes BNE Drsroi ainsi skacxsketianneeeane. 2 Statement ........... ore eibcawas RO re oe 3 : Argument Liwaee aa ceeetabennsseees i carbeeidcen yaks | «6 7 ay p ; © . 4 XY > IN THE Supreme Court of the Rnited som Daas TERM, 1964 : No. - fe ( iLabys: Quanper Tancu.. and BARBARA JACKSON -. WILLIAMS, A at” aes : & . i Vv. ny ¥ WituiaM P. Woorts and. Frat KLIN P. Backvs, Judges of .the Corporation Court of the City of Alexap- dria, — Appefives | : f ’ 7 On Appeal Qin the United States District Court — or She Eastern District of Virginia ~ Noe, / ie ha' : . . “7 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT e P * Appellants appeal from the adverse part of the final: order entered April 28, 1964, by the District Court, consisting *of three judges constituted pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2284, and submit ° Ya 8 this Statement: to show that the Supreme Court of: the United’ States has jurisdiction of the appeal and. that a substantial question is presented. | ea OPINION BELOW | ‘The opinion' of the District Court for the Eastern District oi Virginia, Alexandria Division, is reported — at 230 F. Supp. 156. The opinion and final order of the - District Court are attached hereto-as Appendix B. The jurisdiction of the District Court to decide the question involved in this appeal was invoked under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United State The appellants made a timely motion for sum- mary judgment pursuant to>Rule 56 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and oral argument.of ‘counsel, plus _ the pleadings and briefs of. the parties, provided. the ‘basis for the Court's consideration of the matter. The ‘appellees, through their counsel, the Attorney General, offered no evidence to show that Section 20-101 is re-. lated to the collection of vital statistics by the State. It is apparent, therefore, from this lack of evidénce, as well as the existence in the Code of Section 26-123, which relates by its terins to the collection of statistics, that the Court’s finding that Section 20-101 serves i statistical purpose represents sheer s ulation. Since, the State has shown no justification i e racial pro- visions contained in Seetion 20-101, the section should 4 There is no definition in the Code of the term ‘‘race’’ as it is ~ used in Section 20-101. ~ Section 1-14,0f the Code (1950), howaver; provides: . ee e _* Colored persons and Indians defined —Every person in whom j there. is ascertainable any Negro blood ghall be-deemed and taken to be a colored person, and-every “person not a colored person having one-fourth or more of American Indian blood | ‘shall be deemed.an American Indian; except that mémbers of Indian tribes living on reservations allotted them by the Com- monwealth having’ one-fourth or more of Indian blood and less » than one-sixteenth of Negro blood shall be deemed trtbal Indians so long as they are domitiled on such reservations. (Code 1919, § 67; 1930, P- 97). «hans . ‘o ¥ as 8 have been held unconstitutional by the District Court and its enforcement enjoined.’ The decisions of .this Court make clear that the processes of a state court system may not be used to promote distinctions between. persons. based on race. - Johnson v. Virginia, 373 U.S. 61; Hamilton-v. Ala- bama,- 376 U.S. 650. Under the statutory provision here in question, Virginia has conditioned access to its courts by parties seeking a divorce on a requirement that thet submit to a judicial determination of their race. If, as in the cas&of the appellants, the parties involved are Negro, the requirement is demeaning in - the same sense as any other form of racial discrimina- tion; and for Negro lawyers in the State, serving Negro clients, it is an annoying and irritating experi- ence every time they are required to prepare a divorce decree.* , Virginia’s divorce law is contained in Title 20, Chap- ter 6, of the State Code. Chapter. 6 contains 37 sec-. tions, but except for Section 20-101, requiring . the recital of race, no requirement is set forth in any other part of the law as to the form or content of a divorce decree. Furthermore, with regard to Section -123, which explicitly concerns the, collection of vital statistics, of the eight items of information which must 5 The District Court plainly was mistaken if it meant by its deci- ‘Sion to suggest that a provision of law which has a racial purpose, and no other, is saved from unconstitutionality beqguse it aids in | _ the collection of statisticat data. Every law which promotes racial distinctions, is likely to facilitate the collection of statistics cdn- cerning-race. It is obvious, however, that this fact alouc does net provide justification fer such a law or make it constitutional. * Compare Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 494, where the Court took notice of the fact that state-compelled discrimination tween the races ‘‘is us»ally interpreted as denoting thé inferior- 'y of the Negro group ”’ ® Reh | be reported by. clerks-of, courts, to the State registrar, only the item relating to race, is set apart by the re- quirement of judicial determination. The.singling out of ‘‘ ‘race’ as the single item of information” required in a decred ‘‘in itself ‘underscores the purely racial eharacterfand purpose’ of the statute.’? Anderson v. Martin, 375 U.S. 399, 403. Nor does it matter that Se¢tion 20-101 applies equally to Negro and white. . “Race is the factor upon which the statute operates and its. involvement promotes the ultimate-discrimina- tion which is sufficient to mike it invalid.’’. Id. at 404; “and see N.A.A.C.P. v. Alabama ex rel: Patterson, 357 U.S. 449; 463; Bates v. Little Rock, .361 U.S. 516, 524." It is submitted that the District Court erred in fail- ing to hold that Section 20-101 confliets with the Four: teenth Amendment to the Constitution. We. believe that the question presented by this appec il is substan- tial and that it is of public importance. Respectfully submitted, ~ ALLISON W. Brown, JR. Suite 705 - > : 1000 Connecticit Avenue, N. W. Washington 6; D. C. Orro L. TUcKER . . 901 Prineess Street Alexandria, Virginia August 1964 - 2 Attorneys for Appellants 7 At the District Court heating. counsel for the appellees tlis- claimed any relationship between Section 20-101 and Virginia's miscegenation .statute. The latter provisions are contained in a separate chapter, Chapter 4, of Title 20, entitled ‘‘ Colored Persons ; Marriage Between White and Colored Persons.’’ The validity of that chapter is*not.at issue in this proceeding and an examination -of its “provisions fails to disclose any way in which it would be _affeeted by a declaration of the unconstitutionality of Section 20-101. : la __ APPENDIX A. Text of statutes involved (Code of Virginia (1950)) : See. 20-101. Decre e to show race of parties. —-Anv inter- locutory or final décree granting a* divorce a mensa -et | thoro or a vineulo mat rimonii, as the case may be, shall contain a recital showing the race of the husband and wife; but the failure of such decree to contain such recital shall. not affect the validity of such decree or divoree.: (Code 1919, § 5106; 193s, p. 202.) . See.: 20-123. Report of-divorces by dint to State Regis~ sale trar of Vital. Statistics The clerk of eyery—court: author- ized to grant divorces in Vie = shall on or before the - tenth day of eacti month forward to the State Registrar of Vital Statistics a report of each divorcee and of each annulment of a “marriage granted in his court during the preceding month, on the forms prov ided by the Bureau of Vital Statisties for that 4 purpose. v he reports shall include alleged cause, sex, ovcupation, and: color cf plaintiff and defendant, date and place of Inarriage, number of children in family, and time of sepa- ration, prov ided how ever, the record discloses such infor mation. ~Sueh reports shall be filed and preserved in the State Registrar's oftiee, and from them he shall prepare annually a compilation -of-divoress im’each county and corporation - and make a report of such compilation ta the General Assembly at each regular session. There shall be allowed to such clerks a compensation of twenty-five cents for every divorce reported, to be paid as a part of the costs of the suit. The State Registrar shall certify to the Comptroller the number of divorces and annulments reported by each clerk. (1918, p. 397 ; 1938, p. 188; Michie, Code 1942, § 5116a.) | Ya APPENDIX IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU RT ‘FOR THE EASTERN STRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION Civil Action No. 3127 E. Lesurr Ham, ET AL., Plaintiff's * e Virainta State Boarp or ELsctioys, - aL., Defendants €Argued February 21, 1964 Decided April 28, 1964) Before Bryan, Circuit Ju ‘re, and Lewis and Burtzyer, District Judges. ~ Allison W. Brown, @., Esquire, Washington, D. C. and Otto L; Tucker, Esquire, Alexandria, Virgie, attor- neys for the plaintiffs ; . Robert Y. ‘Button, Esquire, Attoreey — of Virginia ; R. D. Mel bwaine, III, Esquire, -Assistant . Attorney ’ General of Virginia; William J. Hassen,' Esquire, Com- monwealth’s Attorney, Artington, Virginia; Ralph G. Louk, Esquire, Commonwealth’s Attorney, Fairfax, Virginia; Earl F. Wagner, Esquire, Commonwealth’s - Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, attorneys for defend- ants. . | , ae ALBE rt V. Bryan, Circuit. Judge : Certain Virginia statufes and a section of het seaatien- tion are here attacked by plaintiff Negro and white citi- zens ot the State as violative of the Fourteenth and Fif- teenth. amendments of the Federal constitution: The laws assailed ‘deal with records relating to: (1). voting, (2). property, tax assessments, and (3) divorce. - Plaintiffs allege that provisions in the first category ‘‘require lists of persons who are qualified voters in Virginia to be main- ty oa tained on a racially segregated basis.’"' The second cate- gory is°averred to ‘provide for the maigtenance on a racially segregated basis of public records pertaining to property ownership and taxation’’.? The divorce statute - in suit directs that every decreof divorce must recite the race of the spouses.* Besides asking for a declaration’ of Specifically, the following portions of Vieginle' 8 — records laws are-questioned as unconstitutional : (a) Article I], § 38 of-the Virginia Sineicieattinsninelitiain lists of those who have paid their poll taxes to state “white and colored persons separately.” (b) Section 24-28 Code of Vi irginia—requiring registration lists of ‘‘white and colored’’ voters to be * ‘kept ond arranged in sep- ~ arate books or records.’ (ce) Section 24-118 Code of Virginia—requiring registration lixts of voters in certain counties and cities to be kept in loose leaf binders ‘‘with white sheets for recording the names of white voters and buff sheets for recording the names of colored voters (a) Section 24-120 Code of Virginia as amended in- 1968, re- quiring lists of those who have Paid their poll taxes and filed cer- tificates of residehce-to state ‘‘white and colored persons’’ and certain tfibal Indians separately. =That part of the property ena Bal and taxation statutes criticized are : _ (a) Seetion 58-790, Code of Virginia, requiring Asvexsorn, ‘at the time of making assessments of real estate to ‘‘note whether the oWner is white or célored, or Indian as defined by ection 1-14. of* the Code.”’ ° (b) Section 58-804, pars. b, « ec, d and h, Code of Virginia, requir- ing land books for, the cities and counties to be arranged so that separate listings are made of real estate owned by ‘* white persons,” ‘colored persons’ and certain ‘‘tribal Indians,’’ (¢e) Section 58-880, Code of Virginia, requiring personal prop- erty books tw be arranged so that personal property asséssments With taxes and levi ies are shown separately for ‘‘white persons” and *‘colored persons.’* ® Section 20-101, Code of Virginia, requires ‘‘any- interlocutory ‘- or final decree granting a divorce a mensa et there or a vineulo matrimonii .. . [to] contain a } recital showing the race of the inus- band and wife... .”’ 4a the invalidity of these statutory and constitutional provi- sions, revere ‘*seek an injunction restraining the - various governmental officials named as defendants .from enforcing, execu or administering their provisions.’’ The ‘separate but equal”’ racial doctrine was condemned a decade ago in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. - 483 (1954). Subsequent decisional Jaw has made it axio- * matic that no State can directly d&tate or casually pro- mote a distinction in the treatment of persons solely on the basis of their color. To be withinghe condemnation, the governmental action need not effectuate segregation of facilities directly. Cf. Anderson v. Martin, 375 U.S. 399, 402 (1964). The result of the statute or policy must not tend to separate individuals by reason of difference in race or color. No form of State discrimination, no nntter. how subtle, is permissible under the guarantees of the Fourteenth amendment freedoms. See, e.g:, Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715, 721-26 (1961); NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 463 (1958). - Although the legislative history of the provisions pres- ently under examination cannot adequately be ‘traced, - it is evident from the language employed that, save ‘for the divorce decree statute, they serve no other purpose than to classify and distinguish official records on the basis of race or color. Separation of white and colored on the poll tax, residence-certificate and registration lists as well. as on the assessment rolls renders these provisions invalid under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth amend: ment. Of course, es designation of race, just as sex or religious . denomination, may in certain records serve a useful pur- pose, and the procurement and compilation of stich infor- mation by State authorities cannot be outlawed per se. For example, the securing and chronicling of racial data - for identification or statistical use violates no constitu- tional privilege. If the purpose is legitimate, the reason justifiable, then no infringement results. The infirmity of the provisions just mentioned lies in their. mandate of separation of names by race. Vital statistics, obviously, are . aided by denotation” in the divorce decrees of the race of the parties, This pro- - vision @f section 20-101 of the Virginia Code is not objec- tionable in law. Of course, the advertence must be made | in every case, not just in suits involving. Negroes. For the reasons outlined, the defendant State and local officers will be restrained from further adminisf{ration and enforeement of the Virginia laws in issue insofar as they are inconsistent with,the views herein expressed. ‘Since no voting rights and tax assessments are impaired by the present practice, and so there is no urgency for earlier changes, compliance with the restraint we now impose will not be required, before December 31, 1964. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION Civil Action No. 3127 BE. Lesuix Hama, et av, Plaintiffs Goat Viratnia State Boarp-or Evrcrions, et ‘an., Deferdants Final Order Upon the findings of fact and conclusions cof !sw, as well ‘as for the reasons, set-forth in the opinion of the Court this day filed, it is Drctaren: . l. That Article 11, § 38 of. the Constitution of Virginia is in conflict with the Fourteenth amendment of the‘ Con- stitution of ‘the United States insofar as the said section © A Ga ae my requires the lists of poll taxes paid to state the names of | + White and colored persons separately ; 2. That § 24-28 of the Code of Virginia is in conflict with the Fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States insofar as the said section requires that the voting régistration lists of white and colored persdéns be kept and arranged in separate books or records; 3. That $24-118 Code of Virginia is in conflict with the Fourteer'th amendment of the Constitution of the United States insofar as the said section requires the registration lists of voters in named counties and cities to be kept in binders with white sheets for recording the namés of. white. voters and buff sheets for hearan the names of colored voters ; 4 That § 24-190 Code of Virginia, as amended in 1963, is in conflict with the Fourteenth amendment of the Con- . stitution of the United States insofar as the said section — requires the lists of persons who have paid their, poll taxes and filed certificates. of residence to state separately the names of white and colored ‘persons eae certain tribai Indians ; " 5. That §§ 58.790; 58-804, paragraphs~b, ¢, d and h; and 58-880 Code of Virginia are in conflict with the Fourteenth . amendment of the Constitution of the United States inso- far as the said sections require the lists of assessments of real estate, the arrangement of the listings in the land books of real estate, and the arrangement of the per- sonal property books to note and show separately the tiames of = e property owners as white or colored persona; and . 6. That § 20-101, Code of Virginia (1950) is not in con- fet with the Fourteenth amendment of the Constitution ‘of the United States. Ascordingly, it is Awep DGED, OnpERED and Dcarep that * the defe J ants, their agents, employ ees and suécessors be, ~~e = . a . S end cath of then ts hereby, restrained end enjoined ther enforcing any of the constitutional or statutory provisions hereinbefore declared to be in conflict wigh the Fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States, but this injunction shall not be effective ome December 31, 1964. , C4 J ; > United States Cipoutt Judge» Tnited States District Judge United States District Judge April 28th, 1964 te --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385001_0549%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.