Amicus Curiae Brief — Patterson v. McLean Credit Union

Supreme Court brief1989

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES Court

OF APPEALS POR THE PouRTH CiecurT

BRIEF ON REARGUMENT FOR THE LAWYERS’

COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW AS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Ahrens v. Clart, 335 U.S. 188 (1948)

Alyesta Pipeline Serv. Co. + Wilderness

Soc’y, 421 U.S. 240 (1975)

Andrews v. Lowisville & Nashville RR Co.

406 US. 320 (1972)

Arizona «. Rumery, 467 US. 205 (1984)

Atascadero Stase Hosp. + Scanlon, 473 US

7M (1985)

Boys Martets, inc. v Retail Clerts Union, 18

U.S. 235 (1970)

Braden » 30th Judicial Circuits Court of Ken-

tacky, 410 U.S. 484 (1975)

Brown v. Board of Educ, 347 US. 483 (1954)

( hapmany cara ntti 4)

US. 600 (1979)

City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U S$. 55 (1980)

Continental TV. inc. + Ce Sn Os

433 U.S. 36(1977)

Firefighters Inst for Racial Equality + City of

St. Louis, 549 F 24 506 (Gh Cir), core

Florva Dep't of Health & Rehab lusative Servs

v Florida wate Home Ass'n, 450 U S.

147 (1981) . peeoeseeeeet

Garcia + San Antonio Metro Transit Autho .

469 US. 528 (1985)

General Bidg. Contractors Ass'n, Inc. v. Penn-

sylvania, 458 U.S.375 (1982) ........

General Elec. Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125

8 wg g

eens age

Gordon v. Ogden, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 32 (1830) _

Gray v. Greyhound Lines, East, 545 F.2d 169

eee

Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 US. 424

j= hi. oe ees 66 ee «

Grove City College v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555

De. 2... oe 600 eee «

Guardians Ass'n v. Civil Serv. Comm'n of New

Yort . 463 U.S. 582(1983) ......

Miinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 US. 720

DE Se BeeGéeccececceccc.: ,

=a SS atgaigaa

Ladge 76, Insernational Ass'n of Machinists v

i "h /. © © © « « ¢ ;

McNally v. Hill, 293 U.S. 131 (1934)... . |

Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 106 S. Ct.

Monell v. Department of Social Servs. of New

York, 436 U.S. 65S8(1978) ..........

Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961)... |

Moore v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 312 U.S.

CO I ees ee ae

Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U.S. 808 (1985)

Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986)

Panerson v. McLean Credit Union, 108 §. Ct.

DED ceceeseeseeseenece

Peyton v. Rowe, 991 U.S. 54(1968) ......

Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160 (1976)... .

Saint Francis College v. Al-Khaz-aji, 107 S.

Dist. Council of Carpenters, 436 U.S. 180

Ae ee ae

Square D Co. v. Niagara Frontier Tariff

Bureau, 476 U.S. 409 (1986) 3. sk

Tillman v Wheaton-Haven Recreation Ass'n.

Inc., 410 U.S. 491 (1979) 2. wo ee

United States v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co., 388

DEA ceceesceeeetees

3, 16, 18

passim

United States v. South Buffalo R.R. Co., 333

ee es

Welch v. Texas Dep't of Highways & Pub.

Transp., 107 S. Ct. 2941 (1987) .......

Young v. 1.T. & T. Co., 438 F.2d 757 (3d Cir.

eee ekhseseeseseeeeeeete

STATUTES

Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981

Mic: cae y eck aaa wee.

§ 20000 et seg. (1982) 2. 2 2 6 ee

Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of

1976, Pub. L. No. 94-559, 90 Stat. 2641

(1976), codified as amended at 42 U.S.C.

| ASA es a ee

Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, Pub. L.

No. 100-259, 102 Stat. 28(1988) ......

Education Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. No.

92-310, 86 Stat. 235 (1972), codified at 20

FPR) ee ee

Discrimination Act, Pub. L. No. 95-

555, 92 Stat. 2076 (1978), codified as

amended at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k) (1982)

Voting Rights Act of 1965, § 2, 42 U.S.C.

6c a an eens ee <

Voting Rights Act Amendment of |982, Pub.

L. No. 97-205, 96 Stat. 131 (1982), codified

as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (1982)

LEGISLATIVE MATERIALS:

118 Cong. Rec. 3368-71(1972) ........

Pege |

Civil Rights Auorney's Fees Award Act of 1976, Maltz, Some Thoughts on the Death of Stare

S. Rep. No. 1011, 94th Cong., 2d Sess., Decisis in Constitutional Law, 1980 Wis. L.

reprinted in 1976 U.S. Code Cong. & DUG cc ccecee see seeseoees

Admin. News S900... «ss ww we 1S Monagt 5 Decisis end Consti !

Civil Rights Auorney's Fees Award Act of 1976, Adjudication, 8% Colum. L. Rev. 723 (1988)

a = tem. & 8 1981 Modified by Tule Vit of

Reet eee hee the Civil Rights Act of 19647, 1970 Duke LJ.

Equal Employment Opportunities Enforcement Pep ecece eee eee e sete ote «

Act of 1971, H.R. Rep. No. 238, 92d Cong,

2d Sess., reprinted in 1972 U.S. Code Cong _— — 10 Fordham L.

& Admin. News 2137 ... 2... 2 ees \4 : eae e098 ey oe

Discrimination Act of 1978, HR.

Rep. No. 948, 95th Cong., 2d Sess.,

reprinted in 1978 U.S. Code Cong. &

Admin. News 4749) 6 gd 13

Voring Rights Act Amendments of 1982.8. Rep.

No. 417, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in

1982 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 177 12

OTHER AUTHORITIES:

B. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process

ASAP a ee 6

A. Con, The Court and the Constitution (1987) =. 7

A. Con, The Role of the Supreme Court in

American Government (1976) ....... 7

A. Goldberg, Equal Justice: The Warren Era of

the Supreme Cowrt(i971) ee 6

C. Hughes, The Supreme Court of the United

Dc bsaceceeeveeseeoes< 7

Levy, Posner Portrays Judges as Decoders,

Harv. L. Rec., Nov. 21, 1986,a5...... 7

No. 87-107

In THE

Supreme Court of the United States

OctToser Term 1987

BRENDA PATTERSON,

Petitioner,

McLEAN CREDIT UNION,

Respondent

On WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CouRT

OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

BRIEF ON REARGUMENT FOR THE LAWYERS’

COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW AS

AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER

(“Laewyers’ Commattce”) & 2 aationwide civil rights

Matutes powers as sowrces of redress for civil nghts violators

The Lawyers’ Commoetce has 2 particularty strong inter.

eM @ preserving the section 198! anty-dicrummation might

recognized by tha Court ie Reapon © McCrary, 427 US 100

(1976) The Washengtoe Lawyers’ Commeatee represented Mc.

Crary @ that cose ond erged the reset reached by the Court

Sence that tome, the Lawyers’ Commatce has bere volved o

many sectooe 196!) cases and veews that statue. as interpreted

on @ampor as essential! om the bettie against dex rumenatioe

crumunance “mores of jtolday”. id am 191 (Stevens, |] . comcur-

Court imterpretation

of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 adopted by thas Court in Runyon © Me-

Crary should be reconsidered”™” Panerson » Melcan Cred:

C mon, , ominmed). The

answers Bo

Por the and concurring

opmons ia 1976 Lawyers’

( omnm twee Lawyers’ Com-

mittee the 1866 Ciwll

Rights Act

support the

the Lawyers’ Committee's view

soder the imerpretation of section

Ramyon Moreover. sare decisis.

;

recomsadermg statutory precedent Fer mary decisis ont to

1 Poet, Che of Sere Dec’. 10 Fordham L. Bee |. 61/196!)

2 Sears, Roctect 4 Co © See Diego Comm Oe Comer of Cor

powers 456 US 180. 2161/0718) (Bremeae | Geseemng)

ee ee me I ea

‘

most compelling circumstances can justify this Court's

abandonment of —s firmly established statutory precedent||~

Dean Pound expressed bis view on this pownt a half cen.

tury ago.

“[Njothing less than an overriding conviction that «

precept fixed by a prior decision was contrary to the prin

of the law so that it had an il! effect the process

determining new questions by ands

wes, a8 Blackstone puts i. ‘flay’ eajust in its results,

could justify judicial rejection of it

Whether or not Runyon was correctly decided twelve years ago.

it 6 Rot so “contrary to the principles of the law so that it (has)

had an ill effect upon the pracess of determining new questions

by analogical reasoning” Nor could anyone seriously argue

today that the decision in Runyor is “‘flatly’ unjust in its

results” Rumyon's recognition of an unquestionably const)

tuthonal statutory right to be free from private racial discrimina

thon cannot be deemed a “*Matly’ unjust” result.

Other fundamental stare decisis considerations also weigh

heavily against overruling Runyon. First, this Court has

and recently reaffirmed the Runyon hok/ing. there

by mnplicating the purposes of stare decisis consis

tency. predictability

concept of the rule

and stability — values central to the very

of law Second, Runyon is statutory prece-

dem. This Court has long recognized that « is most bound by

stare decisis when reconsidering statutory precedent. especia!

ly na case such as Runyon, where endorsed

that precedent only four months after « was down by

passage of the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976

See infra wt 14-16.

This is not a case where the Court is called upon to ad-

dress asserted error of constitutional dimension as in Brown»

Board of Education, 447 U S$ 483 (1954), and Garcia » San

Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U § $28 (1985S).

4 Monel + Deparenen of Social Sere of New Fort 4960 S 658.

TIS (1978) etequat. | desentng)

5 Pousd. apres com |. ot 6 (emphases: added)

end 75-278. 9 15

7 Munpon, 427 US of 19! (Seewens, | . comcurring) (ctting Justice

“One of the most fundamenta! social interests 1s that law

shall be uniform and impartial There must be nothing in

its action that savors of prejudice of favor or even ar-

berary whim oy firfuliness [There shall be adherence

to precedent

. Justice Harlan, writing for the Court

Moragne » State Marine Lines, 8 US. 375 (1970), om

phasized the importance of stare to an ordered sac tety

“Very weighty consmderations underlie the principle that

courts should not hghtly overrule past decisions Among

these [1s] the desirability that the law furnish a clear guide

for the conduct of individuals. to enable them to plan thew

affairs with assurance against untoward surprise -

Cotem L Rew 723, 743 (1088)

10 Seare decems o dervwed from the Leue phrase rare docu 6: son

qeeee: movers Shad means “let the Sex tee sian aad do oe Sere Dongs

whed hove bees seed” 4 Getdberg. Equal Jartee The Werree fre of

the Sepreme Court 74 (1971)

12 & Cos, The Comer onl Ge Comrtees FT" (1087)

1) Lewy, Pewee Pores Auipee a Decors, Hew © Bee .

New 21, 16 a 5 0D

4 CC Wages, The Regereee Comers of ee Ute Serer 8) (1908)

For these reasons. even if a majority of thes Court showkd

now comchude that Runyor was mecorrectly Gecuded. « should

not be owerrvied As Professor Monaghan erotr

“Eves on ‘overriding comviction” of price error & oct

reswh here Pirst, Rexyon & not so “contrary to the principles

the low” that & has bed “on Of effect epoe the

is =e coe 6 o SS geceng Pout agree oe

ow * Semmbarty Meuse

“|Rpeacterg 2 (omcherent Qe 6 Per (are @ Crraneews @ omy

@e Woe ep @ aecading © ower Gat come le maken Oe cee

< se mer WE eee Oe ung ant

owrerghed &) Ge Near '@ w NM Gcreed fom Oe are Gate we

adogend owl Oe er Mende wet Gx oe @ 8 Pet we Coe

Maem kee Thengte = @r Deet @f here Dew @ ( oreemene Low

1982 We L Ree 7. OF) (eceeee coed)

Peon’, aere oe | ot

= her rata we tt ee

we Rugte to of “USC } iawn cI ote

@e wo memes Offer @ bee cope ot gpteemee Tue VE protite

origin, 42 U S.C. § 2000e-2, while sectce

Gon based oe race or color, Sata Francis College, 107 S Ci 2028 See

Johnson + Raiheay Express Agency, Inc, 421 US 454, 460-6) (1975)

sectioe 198! and ude VII). Note, bs Secmon /98! Modified by

Tile Vil of the Civil Rights Act of 1964", 1970 Dake LJ 1223, 1230-3)

(same) Griggs + Dube Power Co, @1 US 424 (197!) (Tite

VII hatabety may de predx sued dusproporbomate impact) wwh Genera.

Consrectors Ass 2, 458 U S$ 375 (secwoe | 98! habeay requires proof

remamed a éeciarance of nghe that all cues w the Country were Ww) Pave

ageiest cack other, ws well os thew Government”), McDonald +

Santa Fe Trail Trengp Co , 427 U S$ 273, 286-87 (1976) (section 19%! ap

ples to rectal Gecrmunaboe w pre ste employ men! agams! whee Peres

20 Monaghas, npre cow 6, a 160, 62

Eleventh Amendment cases), Papasan » Allain, 478 U S$ 265 (1986), Avas

cadere Stase Hoop + Scanton, 473 U S$ 234, 243 0.3 (1985). A fortiori,

where the constraints of sare decuns are more severe, such as with statutory

precedent, historic al evwence of contrary ment alone cannot suffice as “spe

coral pusuificatoa”

22 Rumery, 467 US 2212

24 See alee Mlinois Brict Co + Minois, 431 US. 720, 736 (1977)

(White, J , writing for the Court) (“[Whe must bear in mind that considers

pons of mare decims weigh heavily im the area of statutory construction.

shere Congress is free to this Court's a

von”), Unsed Seases » South R# Co 399 US. 771, 1-751

Consraries, Congress can rely our aiouke and exe ch

cumstances reversal & aot readily to be made”) (ctavon omitted), Continen

decades since Keogh was decided are insufficient to over.

come the strong presumption of continued validity that ad

heres in the judicial interpretation of a statute. As Justice

Brandeis himself observed, a decade after his Keogh

decision, in commenting on the presumption of stability

im statutory interpretation: ‘Srare decisis is usually the

wise policy because in most matters, it 1s more important

that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be set.

tled right... . This is commonly true, even where the

error is a matter of serious concern, provided correction

can be had by legislation ' We are especially reluctant to

reject this presumption in an area that has seen careful.

imense, and sustained congressional atterion If there

is to be an overruling of the Keogh rule, it must come from

Congress, rather than from this Court.”

Square D, 476 U.S. at 424 (footnotes omitted) (emphasis

added)

Over the past two decades, this Court's interpretation of

the federal civil rights laws generally, and this Court's inter-

pretation of section 1981 specifically, is “an area that has seen

heen , construed by this Court, that task should almost always

any ny ey tt a 714-15 (Rehaguit, |.

dussenung) (“le all cases, private parves shape thew conduct according w

careful, intense, and sustained congressional attention”. id.

Congress’ recent passage of the Civil Rights Restoration Act of

1987, Pub. L. No. 100-259, 102 Stat. 28 (1988), was in direct

response to this Court's interpretation of Title LX of the Educa-

tion of 1972 in Grove City College v. Bell, 465

U.S. 555 (1984)." Similarly, in 1982 Congress amended sec-

tion 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973, to

L. No. 95-$55, 92 Stat. 2076 (1978), responding to this Court's

interpretation of Title Vil of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 jn

General Electric Company v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125 (1976)

In Grove City, thes Court held that the son-discrimination

provisions of Tide IX could be Only to the parvcular program or a

Uvity actually recerwing federal assistance not to the recipient wm

ton of those laws as previously administered” Pub L. No 100-259, § 2.

102 Seat. 28 (1988)

ducrimmaton 446 S a 62465 amendment to the statute (or

rected this . Voting Act Amendment of 1962. Pub L

No. 97.205, 96 Seat 131 (1982), as amended af 42 USC § 1975

In each case, when Congress considered this Court's inter-

pretation of a federal civil right statute to be incorrect, it acted to

change that interpretation. In sharp contrast, Congress has

repeatedly acknowledged the correctness of the Runyon result:

Hielh i] Hit it

Het He ee tua abil

Hail ui t iit yee

ie H i pile lel if

Hi ih lie allt

I eld HE il i! H i

i il at Ha

HP tialtd AE

i eikc fie! 1TH

: i ee:

fin Hi a HH cin if

eee Ha Sa

$425; fan ili

f° etait

wii i

ith

SEH

Hatt

int

Alf

pith

THE aati

i fl a 4 ih

Ha ? all

i Hi Ht

aii Hi

. ted

BHI ale reba

DS) See Monel 406 0S of 0) 0 5 eg het beard conee)

te.

ae ft il ae

| ih Hy tg Hi

i Hig i THETA HIE

Sine ua] pital Say}

aul yu i

Mei uit a EEL

Lette att

aie

Lat a

it iti ES ae hie

eet li a it

1155 Avenue of the Americas

MACDONALD FPUNN

For all these reasons. the Court's dec sion in Runyon +

M. Crary should not be overruled

june 24, 1988

Alabama 5520) New York, New York 100%

Respectfully submated.

iH Ff

Twomas D Baar

Cowman Kk. Hanree

Sruast ). LAND

Roeeet F MULLEN

Cownsel of Revord

Pau. M. O'Connoe I

il ol

CRAVATH, Swaine & Mooer

Ome Chase Manhattan Plaza

New York, New York 10005

On) 428-1000

South Carola 29407 New York, New York 100/19

pay

ads

es}

i t : f Hi, a

sige <¢ beg 58 Cee 3< “

Nae

3 : : e Ht

Ht : if rae th

nT TF if ip i: li <} iF

apatite ane

1730 Rede Ieleed Aveser. \

Washages DC lM

New Yor Usiweruty Law Schoo!

New York. New York 1G01)

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.