# Memorandum — Tillman v. Wheaton-Haven Recreation Assn., Inc. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0106%3A07 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Memorandum - **Published:** January 1, 1973 - **Citation:** 410 U.S. 431 ## Text * Qovon Tunas, 1971 No. 71-1136 Wkray TILMAN, EY AL,’ PETITIONERS == v. ag RECREATION Association, INO., er AL. _ FOR A WRIT OF OBRTIORARI TO THE UNITED § COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH OTRCUIT ligt THE UNITED STATES iy al wth { i States has a continuing interest in, and : ty for, eradicating . discriminatory prac- p deny to the members of any group, .on | their race, access access to residential commu- places of public accommodation or to com- sreational facilities. This .is especially so ot to practices which deny to individuals, sis of race, the same benefits that are ac- » - ‘ herwise have ‘béen available to petitioners hh’ respects, we think’ the court’ of ‘appeals § decision “is in “direct conflict ‘with this decision’ in Sullivan v. Little ‘Hunting Park, O6 "US. 229, and is contrary to the Fifth 's recent holding’ in “Sanders v. Dobbs Houses, “one involved here, which is open to ail ents in’ a given geographical’ area, ‘was not’ Hate’ social club. There, évery adtilt owning or fing a house in the prescribed area was eligible embership, subject only to the approval of the ‘of directors. “There was ino’ plan or pu Tpose siveness” (396 U.S. at 236). The Court ruled. ch tenant, solely’ on the ground of race, “was 9 5.8. at 237), and hence violated d the mandate of f this Oourt’s decision in Sul. 5, wid, net be. defeated: by giving it, the narrow tion adopted by the majority below, See Su- He Runting Parle, sypro, 398, U.S. at 287. Ja, it, make, a, differance thet, to a, limited horabip. is alo, available to, pensons resid: Opals oleadpaie wi Pet, 12) that Gn same station esint in DL ocgetnein cos epaccict an al club Bee Nesmith v. YMCA of Raleigh, 7 24°96, 102 (©.A. 4); and see United 399 F. 24 528 (€.A. 5) ; Bockefel- ox, Luncheon Club, Ing. v, Johuson, 181 F. § (@D.N,X.}. ‘There haa been. no.sttempt here per poma'ot ommpetibility of backgseund or WDnidet the Whealon-Haven ‘by-laws (Pét. 4): “If mem- who shis's Nemoowner eolle Mis: property and relighe Mo og ii, i oe snr on et ot Dr slual fo the poche Una might be if to me wae siotobansoeae ean i in’ G sheer aural fae datinanatat a | pif mide grated which tsetse by’ the terms” of the 1964 r Se aceon tagig t's at venient ty Baliiven’ ¥ ‘Tittle Huunt- byob hehe i 08: ee rool i: --