LUCY et al. v. ADAMS, DEAN OF ADMISSIONS, UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA.
No. 294,
Misc.
Decided October 10, 1955.
Arthur D. Shores, Constance Baker Motley, Robert L. Carter and Thurgood Marshall for petitioners.
Frontis H. Moore for respondent.
Per Curiam.
Petitioners, Autherine J. Lucy and Polly Anne Myers, citizens of Alabama, have been seeking admission to the University of Alabama since September 1952. Respondent William F. Adams is Dean of Admissions of the University. After hearings, United States District Judge Grooms of the Northern District of Alabama found that petitioners had been denied admission to the University “solely on account of their race and color.” Holding this denied petitioners equal protection of state laws, the court permanently enjoined respondent Adams, his agents, employees and others acting in concert with respondent “from denying the plaintiffs and others similarly situated the right to enroll in the University of Alabama and pursue courses of study thereat, solely on account of their race or color.” 134 F. Supp. 235. Respondent’s motion to suspend the injunction pending appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was granted by the District Judge. A judge of that court denied a motion to vacate the suspension and reinstate the injunction. A similar motion is now before us.
The motion is granted and the injunction is reinstated to the extent that it enjoins and restrains the respondent and others designated from denying these petitioners, Autherine Lucy and Polly Anne Myers, the right to enroll in the University of Alabama and pursue courses of study there. Sipuel v. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma, 332 U. S. 631; Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629; McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, 339 U. S. 637. In other respects, the motion is denied.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.