against them by the time-honored recourse to peaceful boycott.

In the first place, those challenging the legality of compulsory attendance at a school ordered by the school board because of Crawford face the disadvantage of being heard in the same branch of government — the judiciary — as the high court which issued the order and ultimately sits in judgment of inferior state court action.

Secondly, persons required to conform to a state court judgment are under more severe coercion than those expected to obey a state criminal statute, because, as Dr. King found in Walker v. City of Birmingham, even if relief may be sought in federal court, the issue of federal constitutionality cannot be raised to such a judgment to the same extent as in challenging a state statute....

Following rejection of this submission, I would from time to time attempt to voice the views of busing dissenters in legal publications in the spirit of the famous speech by Justice John Marshall Harlan II before the New York County Lawyers Association in 1958. While deploring intemperate attacks on the Supreme Court, he said that the Supreme Court welcomed literate criticism of its decisions. But efforts to make such a presentation in the legal press have been unsuccessful and destined to wait until the publication of this book.

Thus it was, in the spring of 1979, following rejection of an essay in a manner portending future difficulty in airing their views, that I met with Mr. Lester and members of his group to consider what steps could be taken in behalf of these real parties in interest.