Busing —Not Integration— Opposed:
Invoke Our Color-Blind Constitution to End It  /  Chapter Four

  
54
Befriending Busing Dissenters
in the Supreme Court
PreviousNext

had prevailed in opposing racial discrimination leading to the decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Among their first efforts toward that end were their amici briefs in the Mendez and Henderson cases, referred to above. Subsequent efforts included the providing of pro bono counsel in behalf of the students challenging the Plessy Doctrine, removing a burden from the students which otherwise would have prevented such a challenge.

I have been similarly motivated to represent the "Groundswell" students in San Diego, who dissented to mandatory assignments to particular schools solely on a racial basis just as Miss Brown had; and to file their amici brief in support of similarly situated students in Oklahoma City.

Although I was confident that I could get it filed, I knew I would have to husband my resources to produce a brief which would meet the following concerns:

First, it must not unduly strain the resources of the "Groundswell" parents who had been "passing the hat" for eleven years to contribute to my out-of-pocket expenses. Economies were achieved in a way that will interest those single practitioners who, like me, must rely upon resources where they can find them. I rough-drafted my brief at a computer class at Ramona High School. Then, with my son Robert's help, I completed the brief in final form on a friend's computer which provided the right type size and spacing required by Supreme Court rules. These two computer experts then aided me in printing a master copy of the brief, to be duplicated by a commercial printer at less cost than a legal specialty printer.

This entire reliance upon my own efforts contrasted with help I got in preparing briefs on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as one of the two Assistant United States Attorneys who manned the San Diego branch office from 1959 to 1964. There, my drafts of the appellate briefs in cases I had tried were sent for perusal by appeal experts in the main Los Angeles office who sent them on to a legal publisher. A product was thus finely tuned, served and filed in accordance with the appellate court rules in every respect.

This contrasts with the painstaking effort necessary to handle, as a sole practitioner, for non-affluent clients, all aspects of a brief, which hopefully was not too roughly hewn, in order to be able to file it in accord with the rules of the high court.
 

Plessy Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S.537 (1896)
 
Henderson  Henderson v. United States, 314 U.S. 625 (1941)
 
Mendez Mendez v. Westminister School District,
64 F.Supp. 544 (SD Cal.1946), aff'd 161 F.2d 774 (9th Cir. 1947)
Westminster, California
 
Mendez Westminister School Dist. of Orange County v. Mendez, 161 F.2d 774 (9th Cir., 1947)
Westminster, California
 
   The above 'Westminister' cases pertain to the City of Westminster, California (Orange County);
case literature also may reference Mendez v. Westminster, 64 F.Supp. 544;
or Westminster School Dist. of Orange County v. Mendez, 161 F.2d 774 (9th Cir., 1947)
 
Brown I Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
Topeka, Kansas
  
  Busing: Chapter 4, pages 51 - 66 — PreviousNext
  
Busing —Not Integration— Opposed
Invoke our Color-Blind Constitution to End It

A Reasoned Opposition to Race-Based
Affirmative Action in Public Schools
by Elmer Enstrom, Jr.
Contents
History of the 30-year Carlin affirmative action lawsuit:
a pro bono case history of applying Constitutional principles.
  
© 1998-2006, 2013 Enstrom Foundation www.EnstromFoundation.org Bookmark and Share