# Jurisdictional Statement — Turner v. Fouche

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386413_0140%3A02

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Jurisdictional Statement
- **Published:** January 1, 1970
- **Citation:** 396 U.S. 346

## Text

JOHN F. DAVIS, CLERK

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

— Term, 1968 2 9
WD, ailesstbteesss

Carvin Turner, et al.,
Appellants,

—V.—

W. W. Fovucue, et al.,
Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

——————_$—_——
ee

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

4

j Jack GREENBERG

MicHsEL MELTSNER
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York

Howarp Moore, Jr.

Peter Rixpskopr
85914 Hunter Street, N. W.
Atlanta, Georgia

Attorneys for Appellants

INDEX

PAGE
I SII tins ceisasserssiiiiceiiianssicininhsnihdnneahcesniidbaniddapaaba 1
RS MIER SENET Le snemc air PE a et as a ee eM 1
(onstitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved ........ 2
ID GUNES ccnjnscnhciastenssisiigusecnsssnibiciebdetabisietasaialbchats 3
STITT -sdcesstovelinesnieectiex napeecasiinia ts hctainsdabdieecebasteinoani 3
The Questions Presented Are Substantial ...................... 11

I. Ga, Code Ann., Tit. 59 §§101, 106 Are Uncon-
stitutionally Vague and Discriminate Against
Negroes by Permitting Their Arbitrary Ex-
clusion From Service as Jury Commissioners
and Jurors in Violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United
Se NRE aR ere tient Moy SNC Aare Pe CT 11

II. Georgia Constitutional and Statutory Provi-
sions for Selection of School Board Members
Operate in Taliaferro County to Exclude Ne-
groes From Participation in the Selection of
Board Members in Violation of the Thirteenth,
Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the
Constitution of the United States

a GOEDEL MGI HIP OMAP IEG SAT STNG LG: EAR BA LS LANE UA IRI}

PAGE

III. The State’s Restriction of Membership on
County Boards of Education to Freeholders
Violates the Equal Protection Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment 200.00...0...0..00ccececccecceceee 24
CIR. dicticichattantiine ete 98

APPENDIX:
Opinion and Order ......... singh demmeetaionecncipennahocsheniiseni: 29
fe ERR Oy ST 38

Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved 40

TABLE or CasEs

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203
LURE \ctcitutacsscsateesinnee ieee ee ie eae 27

Anderson v. Martin, 375 U. S. 399 (1964) wooo... 2
Baggett v. Bullitt, 877 U. S. 360 (1964) ooo 1)
Baxstrom v. Herold, 383 U. S. 107 (1966) 0.00.0. 24
Board of Supervisors v. Ludley, 252 F. 2d 372 (5th
rk SOD paca. alieaiolehiee ttn ect er 16
Bond v. Floyd, 385 U. S. 116 (1966) 20... eceeceecsececccceees 2
Bostick v. South Carolina, 386 U. S. 479 (1967) ........ 13
Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S. 433 (1953) oceans 16
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954) .... 2
Brunson v. North Carolina, 333 U. S. 851 (1948) ........ li
Cassell v. Texas, 339 U. S. 282 (1950) 0... li
Cline v. Frink Dairy Co., 274 U. S. 445 (1927) _..... 15
Commercial Pictures Corp. v. Regents of University of
New York reported with Superior Films, Inc. v. De-
partment of Education, 346 U. S. 587 (1954) 00000... 15

iii

PAGE

Commissioners of Chatham County v. Savannah Elec-
tric and Power Co., 112 S. E. 2d 665, 215 Ga. 636

TI) arn nnss ness essresnen-negeivnensnsnrnnensernossnanimanenacercnasennesenanenee 27
Davis v. Schnell, 81 F. Supp. 872 (S. D. Ala.)° aff’d

per curiam, 366 U. S. 983 (1949) 02-2 eects 15
Edwards v. South Carolina, 373 U. S. 229 (1963) ........ 15
Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 383 U. S. 339 (1966) ................ 15
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963) -....00........ 25
Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339 (1960) ............ 20, 22
Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 12 (1956) ..............000.. 25
Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Ry. v. Ellis, 165 U. S.

SUITED "vse ces:sstoaedpansicigsnannanssiiebitionseblopiivetcuiabinantiioamsanecnkeanbeen 24

Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U. S. 663
| Ee a Cone hy

Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U. S. 242 (1937) ...................c000 15
Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U.S.
IE MINED , pinnso-scdeodebuiseiowtcviiesiiaotcnilinieeibitaoin inthditabibianiitih 2

Joseph Burstyn, Ine. v. Wilson, 348 U. S. 495 (1952) ... 15

Labat v. Bennett, 365 F. 2d 698 (5th Cir. en vane

SITE sine tonivths sniadsdicncamashinuaiinnbbacins ioueaadh tind tthiailancibteaale 12, 16

Landes v. Town of Hempstead, 231 N. FE. 2d 120, 20
GR) | eer. Seen 26, 27
Lane v. Wilson, 307 U. S. 268 (1939) ........................0.. 22
Louisiana v. United States, 380 U. S. 145 (1965) ....15, 16,
17, 22

iv

MacDougall v. Green, 385 U. S. 281 (1948)
Mitchell vy. Johnson, 250 F. Supp. 117 (M. D. Ala. 1966) 11

Neal v. Delaware, 103 U.S. 3870 (1881)... «17
Nixon v. Condon, 286 U. S. BRINE ooactisicrececesieesuscccece 20)
Nixon v. Herndon, 273 U. S. 536 (1927) ..00... 20)
Pierce vy. Ossining, —— F. Supp. ——- No. 68 Civ. 4150
[So mm. 3. Sroeeaed Nov, 1, 1906) ..........00................ 26

Rabinowitz v. United States, 366 IF. 2d 34 (5th Cir.
en banc 1966) .................. BEIGE. FRE RE A at ee 13
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 538 (1964) . pay a ame ae 19, 21

Sailors v. Board of Education of Kent County, 387

a cassspamnitnininnsnbooms 19, 21
Shelley v, Krae ner, 384 U.S. 1 (1948) oe 20
Sims v. Baggett, 247 F. Supp. 96 (M. D. Ala, 1965) .... 21
Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 585 (1942) oc. 24
Slaughter House Cases, 88 U.S. 86 (1878) 20000. 22
Smith v. Allwright, 321 y S. 649 (1944) .... ww... 22
Smith v. Bennett, 365 U. 708 (1961) .. ae 25
Smith v. Paris, 257 F. “el 901 (M. D. ‘Ala. N. D.

SD I GU 0, NF isn ccc aweccnsvevnseesseecensesseconenss 9
Smith v. Texas, 311 U. S. 128 (1940) 0. 13, 16
South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966) .... 15
Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U.S. 313 (1958) 000000... 15
Terry v. Adams, 345 U. S. 461 (1953)... 20, 23

Turner v. Goolsby, 255 F. bak 724 (S. D. Ga. 1965) .... 4

PAGE

United States v. Atkins, 323 F. 2d 733 (Sth € r. 1963) 15

United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U. S. 81
RUD stenrensanceces (Answers of Defendants Cranston Jones
et al. to Interrogatories, answers 26 and 27.) The re-
mainder of the school budget comes from a variety of
state and federal sources. A further indication that school
board members are so limited in their financial levying
power as to make the freehold qualification without rele-
vance to their powers and duties is the limit on school tax
rates to be found in the Georgia Constitution, which re-
stricts a county board to a levy of no greater than 20 mills

_ per dollar of assessed value unless recourse is had to the

voters of the county. Georgia Code Ann., Tit. 2 §7501; Com-
missioncrs of Chatham County v. Savannah Electric and
Power Company, 112 8. I. 2d 665, 215 Ga. 636 (1960).

Appellants contend, therefore, that the court below erred

_ in not finding as the New York Court of Appeals found

for town government that “it is impossible ... to find any
rational connection between qualifications for administer-
ing [school] affairs and ownership of real property”
Landes v. Town of Hempstead, 20 N. Y. 2d at 421. We em-
phasize that nothing appellants urge detracts in the least
from the power of the states to assure that competent
persons administer the public schools. In Abington School
District v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203 (1963) for example, this
Court recognized the special stake parents have in the
proper administration of their schools by granting them
standing to contest unconstitutional practices taking place
inthem. Georgia law does not, however, recognize a group

28

with a special concern for the schools by limiting board
members to freeholders; on the contrary, it vests member.
ship in a group with no such special concern. Where an
interest as vital as the operation and management of the
schools is involved, a state violates the Equal Protection
Clause by restricting control of its educational establish.
ment to those who own a particular class of property.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons probable jurisdiction
should be noted.

Respectfully submitted,

Jack GREENBERG
MicHaEL MELTSNER
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019

Howarp Moors, Jr.

Peter RiInpskopr
85914 Hunter Street, N. W.
Atlanta, Georgia

Attorneys for Appellants

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386413_0140%3A02. Public record. Not legal advice.