# Brief for Appellants — McLaughlin v. Florida > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386411_0103%3A4 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Brief for Appellants - **Published:** January 1, 1964 - **Citation:** 379 U.S. 184 ## Text —, { Ottice-Supreme Court, US. “ FILED a 1964 IN THE Supreme Court uf the United ts si Ocroser Term, 1964 5 No. ll > =. Dewey McLaveuniy, et al., Appellants, —_vVi— FLoripa. ’ ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE ‘STATE OF FLORIDA BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS JACK GREENBERG JaMrES M. Nasrit, III Leroy D. CLARK 10 ‘Columbus Circle New York, New York Louis H. PornaK 127 Wall Street New Haven, Connecticut. en Wittiam T Coteman, Jr. 26535 Fidclity-Philadelphia - Trust Bldg. Philadelphia 9, Pennsylvania G. KE. Graves, Jr. 802 N. W. Second Avenue . Miaini, Florida. aa ttorneys for Appellants. — ——— _—— — INDEX | PAGE Opinion Below ..........---- ts caubatediupmmentehersesorsneseiebentd Siro tetas Jurisdiction ........0...-c--cc ceeees oe sora cesendvin BE Lied hg PSP Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved — ~ Questions Presented... avian cabanas Haein . . g . heh cdc sa verenesrnecnecsenen msznestvenmvannenaereminMtentses san years . - te 7 ‘Summary of Argument... yy pees Fes aanece ARGUMENT: I. i]. Ill. Appellants Were Convieted Ender a Law - Whieh Makes Race an tlement of the Crime, Punishing a Negro and a White Person for, Acts Not Prohibited When Done by Persons of the Same Race, and Thus Violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amenament .....----\ er Appellants Were Denied Rights Viider the “Due Process and Bqual Protection Clauses of : | the Pourteenth Amendment by Florida's Mis cegenation Laws Which Had the Effeet of Requiring the Jury to Disregard Evidence of a Common Law Marriage H It Decided That One Appellant) Was White and That the Other Was Negro... cert ee ee Appellants Were Denied ‘Due Process Be- cause Either There Was No Proof of Their Race or Florida's Racial Definition Ix Vague 1 ~ 1h Coxchrsi0x ............. ices Se PRS econ Seen > APPE NDIX: States Repealing Miscegenation Laws in Recent Sh RRMRNE LD PRAY ANS ARE aR PREG RCEC eler oRCAHe Soar. la States Repealing Miscegenation Laws in Last Cen- ys gaptaleane Ai irvere nites tree: AA ores Rieiceuruesea pias ake 2a . States Never Enacting Statutes W hich Prohibit Inte rracial Marriage .--........ Bis natertmsisnsealontorn iia kon 2a Snien at Present Prohibiting Inte racial Mar- 3 riage ak cutee Os ANAL eR Bs LE TDs CoO 3a TABLE OF Cases Abington School District v. Sche ‘MpP, 374 U. S$. 2 203 a ee Anderson v. i 379 U.S. 399 . SITS WN RD ORC ole 12, 26 | $d 822... 2% B ae v. " Slearige: 347 U. ‘Ss. 497 “ ita ey i2 Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S: 483 ....12, 13, 14, 25 Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 02.000... 8, 12, 13, 14, 26 Burns v. State, 48 Ala. 195 (1872) Se OED eared 24, 26 Callen v. Florida, 94 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 1957) aaa aor 1 Campbell v. State, 92 Fla. 775, 109 So. 809 (1926) .. . 30 Chaachou vy. Chaachou, 73 So, 2d 830 (Fla. 1954). ...... _ 16 Cloud y. State, 64 Fla. 237, 60 So. 180 (1912) ...... orweren 1] Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385... 930 Cooper y. Aaron, 358 T.. S. ; iidineseeayrastoreeeaes ee ree, 25 | Dorsey'v. State Athlete Coxpasinicn, 168 F. Supp. 149 = CE Bh ik, FR ee ee a voces, 13 Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 2.0 ce ee. 13 iil PAGE Gayle v. Browder, 352 U.S. 908, affirming, 142 F. Supp. po a Re ee es) oer Saar re Seater 13, 14, 26 “Gibson v. Mississippi, 162 U.S. 5607.00... 13 Goss v. Board of Education, 373 U.S. 689 ......13, 14, 25, 26 Green v. State, 58 Ala. 190 (1S¢7) .....2..2--- OEE fer 24 ' Grice v. State, 76 Fla. 751, 78 So. 984 (DITA) 2. 12 Hamilton v. Alabama, 376 U.S. 600 0... divkcnby a sineeasines Ww Hill v. United States ex rel. Weiner, 800 PLS. 105 0000. T4 “Virabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81. 4 12 Holmes y. Atlanta, 350 U.S. 879, reversing 2 223 B 2d 93 (Sth Cir, W990) op Scpuiciebes yoiebsartianiou atelergniee . BR Jackson vy. Alabama, 348-0. S. 888 20. Deenlncnnsstc, ane Johnson v. Virginia, 373 U.S. G1 ob. le 18, 26 Korematsu vy. United States, 825 U.S. 6 ol te - Langford y, State, 124 Fla. 428, 168 So, 628 (1986) 00000 71 Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451 Ks 30 Le Blane v. Yawn, 99 Fla. 467, 126 So. 789 (1950) i Lewis v. State, 93 So, 2b 707, (Fla. WoT)... 18 — Lombard y, Louisiana, 303 U.S M.D... 13, 26 Lonas v. State, 00 Tenn. 287 (9874) ......... Rees . Ww Luster v. State, 23 Fla. 889, 2 So. 60 (1SST) —...... pat 11 Malioy v. Hogan, aowcem S$, ——, 12 L. ed. 2d 6538 4)... 18 Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 Sendo be ae Missouri Pacifie Railway Co. vy. Nansas, 248 v. 2 Sy Moore v . Missouri, 199 U.S; 673. ew nee, ‘Naim v. Naim, 390 0. S. mee distnissed am Tt. eae Peckiittion ¢ “USCS, 253 U, S. deal) . mae a Navarro, Ine. v. Baker, 54 So. 2d 59 (Fla. T951) .. ae ae Orr v. State, 129 Pla. 308, t76 Mo. 50 (1987) ............... iv | ; PAGE Pace v. Alabama, 106 U. S. 583... sessssesTy & 13, 14, 18 Parramore v. State, 81 Fla. 621,88 So. 472 (1921): seateiah 16 _ Penton v. State, 42 Fla. 560, 28 So. 774 (1900) 2...0..2...... ~AT Perez v. becca 32 Cal. 24711, 198 P.2d 17 (1948) 2% 21; . 26 Peterson v. Greenville, i? 2) ee 8, 13, 14, 26 . Pinson y. State, 28 Fla. 735, 9 So. 706 (1907) ................ ee Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 030... n Staderleicies deaone 13, 20 Scott v. Georgia, 39 (fa. 321 (1869) eect 2 Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. 393 —....000000.........-. AAR Rowe 24 Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 We SRA LADO CA 14, 26 Skinner. v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 585 ...0.0..c cece 19 State v. Jackson, 80 Mo. 175 (1883) 20000... ele anaes 21 State v. Pass, 59 Ariz. Pie 121 F. 2d 882 (1942) Crate 20 Steele v. Louisville & N. R. Co:, 323 U.S. 192 200. 13 Thomas vy. State, 39 Fla. 437, 22 So. 725 (1897) -........... Ba. Thompson v. Louisville, 362 U.S. 199 ............---.---.-+--. 28 - ‘Thompson's Estate, In re, 149 Fla. 42, 199 So. 392 (1940) eerie 17 Wall v. Altbello. 49 So. 2d 532 (Fla. TE ie lectcrmnevcnnnine 25 Watson v. Memphis, 373 U.S. ae Ga ttabets soa cs ceene 26 Whitehead v. State, 48 Fla. 64, 37 So. 302 (1904) _..... 11 - Wildman v. State, 157 Fla. 334, 25 So. 2d $08 (1946) ....10, 11 Williams v. Bruffy, oth oko ee ee eannten 2 Wright v. Georgia, 373 ELS. 284 ecteceresy Shr toes Ri neees 13, 26 SraTUTES Ala. Code, 1940, $301(31e) _............. dicing tse ko 14 Fia.. Beet; Bam. TE, BOGR, Y9} yt, 2neaes ene cereeescsce spears Taaeen D5 F.S. A. Constitution; Deelaration of Rights, Wd ss bncucve ' 18 F. S. A. Constitution, et. 26, 96 5k... ite et 15 BLS! A. 331. eee Ween tire Gi Ai Mien Sharan net 20 F.S, A. £741 REL ERE COR Ene eR A Vv , PAGE Me at Gas) eeatedenmenmeenpmnsentem ie were 3,8, 15 Fla, ici Dai SSBB GI oiecacsie cxoresscessen ove ecrooesnennvoretinres 16 Fla. Stat. Anno., \741.14 200... ERE en nets Fe oho a 16 Win. Stat. Asmo., S740 ED... 5-ccsccee etsy toeqeesemes OST sl -16 Fla. Stat. Anno., $741.16 100... te 16 Oe A SUMED iccietics ches Cee ee ee Se F. S.A: §79601 _...-1..... SORES. Aen MM ee Pee ee fe le Ge’. eAeeareeeaents ae Nite RN Toten ‘JR Oe A III ooo ecnisvscasccsvcvrntasenstmomrsiinioenegmpeaics sn et a 11,13 vs A. STs... oe eh en Men le oa 11 : B.S. AL §798.05 ines Fs Eee en : 11, ages 13,27 S.C. Code, 1952, 5 5377 Late gunaenticec ieee De eviccnntaeirs win 14 28 U. 8. C. $2572) .......--: Sue Pek Eres RRA as hes ? aU at, et... Eben Sebelet eae Rar ak eaene ie 26 ¢ OTHER AUTHORITIES Beals and Hoijer, An Introduction to Anthropology (1953) SAIN NI TY ee an aaa cia ennacereheepa cones 230 46 Cong. Globe, part 4, p.. 3042 (39th Cong., Ist Sess.) 2o - Dohzhansky, “T he Raee Coneept in Biology,” The Sct-. . : entific Monthly, L I (Fe b. 1941) .22.n.-neeereceenenccneqeenensenees an Hankins, The Racial Basis of C iviliz sation (1926) !...... . 2 Kroeber, Anthropology CO cients Mt oF Montague, An Introduction to Physte al Sickpnieleate Li) | ere ES Sea Oe es Ne NR Oe ME Atos RON ek 8 BB Montague, Man's Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race (4th vd. p ERE RISER etter eo 1.22.23. D Note, 58 Yale L. J. 472 (1949)... 2 eee ert 23 Note, “Rights of Hlegitimates U nder Federal Stat- utes,” 76 Harv. L. Rey, 337 (1962) Oi Se PR ae Latenas 2 vi . ae _ PAGE Rand-MeNally, Cosmopolitan World Atlas ........... ae UNESCO, “Statement on the Nature of Race and Race .Differences—by Physical Anthropologists and Genet- icists, September 1952” 2:....--.-------1----------eereeeeettereeeteeee 22 Weinburger, “A Reappraisal of the Constitutionality of Miscegenation Statutes,” 42 Corneli L. Q. 208 (1907) 22: Yerkes, “Psychological Examining in the U.S. Army”, ‘15 Mem. Nat. Acad. Sei. 705 (1921) -....... oy a ecaeisioks ae ” ~~ « IN THE Supreme Court of the United States OCTOBER Teas, 1964... No. 11. > Dewry McLavGHLin, etal., ae a Appellants. —Vi— \ FLORIDA. -ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA —, ~*) “purity”, is confirmed by the harsh treatment of the chil- dren of such marriages.” These are laws with a “purely racial character and-pur-— pose,” like the regulations in Goss y. Board of Education, 373 U. S. 683, 688. “Miscegenation laws are “relies of slav- ery”? and their enforcement by the states violates the Fourteenth Amendment.” This Court has struck down numerous segregation laws rejecting all manner of state claims of Negro inferiority, and claims of the legitimacy of governmentally required and encouraged racism. Brown y. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483; Cooper v. Aaron, 358 © For example, F. S. A. §741.11 declares that the issue of inter- racial marriages “shall he regarded as bastards.” It, in addition, renders them “incapable of having or receiving any estate, real, personal or mixed by inheritance.” Florida, where the parents are of one race, has modified the rigors of the common law dealing with bastardy. F. S. A. §731.29. This latter class of. illegitimate children can inherit ‘property from the mother. Through acknowl- edgment by the father they are enabled to inherit through him. Wall v. Altbello,-49 So. 2d 532 (1950). Yet, issue of interracial marriages cannot be legitimized and can never inherit property. Children can ordinarily be legitimized by the subsequent marriage of the parents. Where, however, the parents are of different races, F. S. A. §741.11 prevents them from legitimizing their children in this manner. See also, Note, “Rights of Mlegitimates Under Federal Statutes,” 76 Harv. L. Rev. 337 1962), for the possible impact of Florida miscegenation laws on federally created, rights. Cf. Bell v. Maryland, U. 8S. ——. 12 L. ed. 2d 822, 871, 877 (separate opinion of Justice Douglas). F. S.A. $741.11 is derived from Fla. Act. Jan. 23, 1832, §§1,.2. Miscegenation laws now remain in éffect in only nineteen statés; see appendix, infra. _.*24 Plorida’s belated argument that the Fourteenth Amendment _is not binding on it because improperly proposed in the Senate is frivolous. But responsive to Florida’s argument concerning the vote needed to propose a constitutional amendment, see National Prohibition Cases, 253 U.S. 350, 386 (two-thirds of those present) ; ef. Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Kansas, 248 U.S. 276. On June 8, 1866, the Senate had a quorum; 44 members wer¢ present; 33 of those present (far more than two-thirds) voted in favor of the proposed amendment. 46th Cong. Globe, part 4. p. 3042 (39th Cong., Ist Sess. ). 26 U.S. 1: Goss v. Board of Education, 373 U.S. 683; John- son y. Virginia, 373 U. 8. 61; Peterson v. Greenville, 373 U.S. 244; Lombard vy. Loursiana, 373 U. S. 267; Wright v. Georgia, 373'U. S. 284; Watson v. Memphis, 373 U. S: 526: Anderson v. Martin, 379 U.S. 399: Shelley v. Kraemer, 339 U. S. 1: Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U. S. 60; Gayle v> - Browder, 352 U. S. 903.% The logic of those cases compels the same result here. < The issue is whether under our Constitution Negroes . will have the same personal liberties and the same status as citizens given to white Americans. There can be but one answer if the purposes of the Fourtéenth Amendment are to be realized in our law. -. 230¢) Perez vy. Lippold, 32 Cal. 2d 711, 198 P. 2d 17 (1948) (invalidating California's miscegenation law; ‘and see Burns V. State, 48 Ala. 195 (1872), holding an Alabama miscegenation law violative of the Fourteenth Amendment and a federal statute (now 42 U’. S. C. $1981) as well. (As noted above Burns was overruled by a later Alabama, Court.) ~§ Appellants Were Denied Due Process Because Either There Was No Proof of Their Race or Fineiae s Racial ~ Definition Is Vague. In order to convict under F. S. A. 6798.05, Florida was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant McLaughlin was a, Negro and that appellant Hoffman was white. Florida law has attempted to define “Negro,” but there is no attempt at-all to define -a white person. The definitton of “Negro” in F.S.A. 61.01(6) is: . (6) The words “negro,” “colored;” “colored per- ”* “mulatto” or “persons of color,” when apphed to .persoas, include every person having one-eighth or more of African or negro blood. es sons, At the trial in this case the prosecution made ro pretense of proving race (an element of the crime) by reference to. the statutory rule—"one-eighth or more of African or negro blood.” Instead, the -prosecutor relied on a policeman’s opinion as to the-race of both appellants. (R. 65), and his opinion was admittedly based merely upon observation of them. ° | The State: surely failed to satisfy the literal re quirements of F. S. A. §1.01(6) as to either appellant. This is quite evident from a colloquy between the Court and counsel. Defense counsel objected to opinion evidence on appellants’ race saving that the State was hound by the statutory defi- nition which mentioned: “blood”; that there was no such thing as “Negro blood”; and that the statute was thus vague (R. 61). The trial judge, after expressing doubt as ‘to his power to declare a state law unconstitutionally vague, said that this one had to be given a “common sense” construction and that it must refer to “anvone whose blood 28 is 1¢th from a Negro ancestor” (R. 62). When -counsel pointed out that there was no proof concerning appellant’s ancestors, the Court said, “Then we come back to the ap- -pearance again” (R. 63), and ruled that “anybody who had considerable experience in dealing and associating with Negro people and white people will be able to testify to