Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T23:22:51.881Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Planned Is “Planned Litigation”?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Stephen L. Wasby
Get access

Abstract

Civil rights litigation undertaken by lawyers associated with interest groups, particularly the NAACP and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF), is of ten described as planned” litigation. This article examines litigation by these organizations from the late 1960s through the early 1980s to explore the extent to which “planned litigation” is planned. The author interviewed both staff attorneys for organizations participating in race relations litigation and “cooperating attorneys” associated with such organizations.

Elements of planned litigation discussed are litigating organizations’ choices—of areas of law on which to focus, of cases, of federal or state courts, and of amicus curiae participation—and the dynamics of litigation—including relations between staff and cooperating attorneys, litigators’ control of cases, and the effect of Supreme Court decisions on litigation strategy.

The interviews reveal that much interest-group civil rights litigation is not selected deductively on the basis of previously developed criteria but instead develops inductively from cases that come to the organizations and is affected by pressure and circumstance. Counter to the view, stemming from Brown v. Board of Education, that civil rights litigation is undertaken as planned “campaigns” based on “blueprints,” it appears that much about “planned” litigation is problematic, with many constraints imposed by the actions of others and by resource problems, with the result that many deviations from litigation strategy occur. Thus much “planned” litigation is responsive and reflexive and beyond litigators’ control.

Type
Articles
Information
American Bar Foundation Research Journal , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , Winter 1984 , pp. 83 - 138
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 1984 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 334 U.S. 1 (1948) (judicial enforcement of racial restrictive covenants is state action in violation of Fourteenth Amendment). For an account of the development of this case, see Clement E. Vose, Caucasians Only: The Supreme Court, the NAACP and the Restrictive Covenant Cases (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1959).Google Scholar

2 347 US. 483 (1954) (segregation in public education by state statute invalid under Fourteenth Amendment). For background and development of Brown, see Richard Kluger, Simple Justice: The History of Brown v. Board of Education and Black America's Struggle for Equality (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1976).Google Scholar

3 See particularly Kluger, supra note 2.Google Scholar

4 See Karen O'Connor, Women's Organizations' Use of the Courts (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1980).Google Scholar

5 See Frank J. Sorauf, The Wall of Separation: The Constitutional Politics of Church and State (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1976).Google Scholar

6 See O'Connor, Karen & Epstein, Lee, The Rise of Conservative Interest Group Litigation, 45 J. Pol. 479 (1983), and R. Shep Melnick, Regulation and the Courts: The Case of the Clean Air Act (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1983).Google Scholar

7 Vose, supra note 1; Kluger, supra note 2.Google Scholar

8 Sorauf, supra note 5.Google Scholar

9 O'Connor, supra note 4.Google Scholar

10 Mark Tushnet, Organizational Structure and Legal Strategy: The NAACP's Campaign Against Segregated Education, 1929-1950 (manuscript 1980).Google Scholar

11 Material that appears in quotations without a source is drawn from transcripts of interviews conducted on the basis of respondents' anonymity.Google Scholar

12 Like two others: Stephen L. Wasby, The Multi-faceted Elephant: Litigator Perspectives on Planned Litigation for Social Change (paper presented to Law and Society Association, Denver, June 1983); id., Some Horizontal and Vertical Dynamics of Civil Rights Litigation: Litigator Perspectives (paper presented to Southern Political Science Association, Birmingham, Ala., Nov. 1983).Google Scholar

13 E.g., Belton, Robert, A Comparative Review of Public and Private Enforcement of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 31 Vand. L. Rev. 905 (1978); Jack Greenberg, Litigation for Social Change: Methods, Limits and Role in Democracy (Cardozo Lecture No. 30, Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Oct. 31, 1973) (also in 29 Rec. A.B. City N.Y. 9 (1974)); Michael Meltsner, Cruel and unusual: The Supreme Court and Capital Punishment (New York: Random House, 1973).Google Scholar

14 See Wasby, Some Horizontal and Vertical Dynamics, supra note 11.Google Scholar

15 Tushnet, supra note 11, at 4–3, 4–15; Stuart A. Scheingold, The Politics of Rights: Lawyers, Public Policy, and Political Change 109 (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1974).Google Scholar

16 Fischoff, B. & Beyth-Maron, R., Failure Has Many Fathers, 7 Pol'y Sci. 388, 391 (1976).Google Scholar

17 Kluger, supra note 2.Google Scholar

18 Tushnet, supra note 10, at 1–1 to 1–2.Google Scholar

19 396 U.S. 1218(1969).Google Scholar

20 Hahn includes with the latter (“tactics”) such specific “techniques” as “use of class action suits, expert testimony and research by social scientists, [and] filing of briefs amicus curiae.” Jeanne Hahn, The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund: Its Judicial Strategy and Tactics, in Stephen L. Wasby, American Government and Politics 387, at 393–94 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1973). In the terms “litigation planning” and “strategy” we include filing amicus briefs and use of class action suits, but we exclude use of expert testimony (see Sanders, Joseph, Rankin-Widgeon, Betty, Kalmuss, Debra, & Chesler, Mark, The Relevance of “Irrelevant” Testimony: Why Lawyers Use Social Science Experts in School Desegregation Cases, 16 Law & Soc'y Rev. 403 (198182)) and social science research as more appropriately considered “trial strategy.”Google Scholar

21 Greenberg, supra note 13, at 20.Google Scholar

22 Belton, supra note 13, at 943.Google Scholar

23 Sorauf, supra note 5, at 92.Google Scholar

24 O'Connor, supra note 4, at 3–5.Google Scholar

25 Michael Meltsner & Philip G. Schrag, Public Interest Advocacy: Materials for Clinical Legal Education 77 (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1974).Google Scholar

26 Rabin, Robert L. Lawyers for Social Change: Perspectives on Public Interest Law, 28 Stan. L. Rev. 207, 223 (1976).Google Scholar

27 Belton, supra note 13, at 932, 934; Joel F. Handler, with George Edgar & Russell F. Settle, Public Interest Law and Employment Discrimination, in Burton A. Weisbrod et al., eds., Public Interest Law: An Economic and Institutional Analysis 251, 272 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978).Google Scholar

28 Greenberg, supra note 13, at 18 (emphasis in original).Google Scholar

29 Robert B. McKay, Nine for Equality Under Law: Civil Rights Litigation: A Report to the Ford Foundation 13–14 (New York: Ford Foundation, 1977).Google Scholar

30 268 F. Supp. 83 (S.D. Ohio 1967) (public officials' awareness of discrimination against minorities by unions coupled with contractors' acquiescence in that discrimination in public construction projects is state action subject to remedies under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, § 1983).Google Scholar

31 Gary Orfield, Must We Bus? Segregated Schools and National Policy 213 (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1978); see also id. at 222–23, 227.Google Scholar

32 See Belton, supra note 13; Meltsner, supra note 13; O'Connor, supra note 4.Google Scholar

33 Holden, Matthew, Litigation and the Political Order, 16 W. Pol. Q. 771, 777 (1963).Google Scholar

34 Id. at 774–75.Google Scholar

35 Greenberg, supra note 13, at 14.Google Scholar

36 Scheingold, supra note 15, at 5.Google Scholar

37 Thomas B. Marvell, Appellate Courts and Lawyers: Information Gathering in the Adversary System 53 (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1978).Google Scholar

38 See Rabin, supra note 26, at 221; Sorauf, supra note 5, at 103.Google Scholar

39 Sorauf, supra note 5, at 78–79; Joel B. Grossman, A Model for Judicial Policy Analysis: The Supreme Court and the Sit-In Cases, in Joel B. Grossman & Joseph Tanenhaus, eds., Frontiers of Judicial Research 431 n. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1969).Google Scholar

40 Sorauf, supra note 5, at 129; Jonathan D. Casper, Lawyers Before the Warren Court: Civil Liberties and Civil Rights, 1957–66, at 149–50 (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1972).Google Scholar

41 Leubsdorf, John, Completing the Desegregation Remedy, 57 B.U.L. Rev. 34, 94 (1977).Google Scholar

42 Id. Google Scholar

43 Greenberg, supra note 13, at 20.Google Scholar

44 Hahn, supra note 20, at 393.Google Scholar

45 NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, 1981/1982 Annual Report 4.Google Scholar

46 334 US. 1 (1948).Google Scholar

47 See Hill, Herbert, The National Labor Relations Act and the Emergence of Civil Rights Law: A New Priority in Federal Labor Policy, 11 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 299, 308–17 (1976).Google Scholar

48 Independent Metal Workers Local 1, 147 N.L.R.B. 1573 (1964) (refusal to process grievance because of race an unfair labor practice; union committing such unfair labor practice not entitled to protection under the act).Google Scholar

49 404 U.S. 1027 (1972).Google Scholar

50 Greenberg, supra note 13, at 10.Google Scholar

51 Id. at 12.Google Scholar

52 Id. at 14.Google Scholar

53 347 U.S. 483 (1954).Google Scholar

54 Greenberg, supra note 13, at 20.Google Scholar

55 Id. Google Scholar

56 Id. Google Scholar

57 Id. at 31–32.Google Scholar

58 Id. at 29.Google Scholar

59 Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) (durational residence requirement in connection with welfare benefits is violation of right to travel).Google Scholar

60 See Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) (no termination of welfare benefits without hearing).Google Scholar

61 See Dandridge v. Williams, 397 US. 471 (1970) (state maximum grant for AFDC beneficiaries not violation of either Social Security Act or Equal Protection Clause).Google Scholar

62 Aryeh Neier, Only Judgment: The Limits of Litigation in Social Change 136 (Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press, 1982); see generally ch. 8, at 127–40.Google Scholar

63 See Gary Orfield, The Reconstruction of Southern Education: The Schools and the 1964 Civil Rights Act (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1969).Google Scholar

64 Neal Milner, Legal Mobilization and the Emergence of Mental Health Rights Litigation: A Comparative Analysis 3 (paper presented to Law and Society Association, Denver, 1983).Google Scholar

65 See Zemans, Frances Kahn, Legal Mobilization: The Neglected Role of the Law in Political Science, 77 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 690, 697 (1982).Google Scholar

66 See Orfield, supra note 31, at 247–58.Google Scholar

67 See Jones, Nathaniel R., An Anti-Black Strategy and the Supreme Court, 4 J.L. & Educ. 203, 203–4 (1975).Google Scholar

68 NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, The 40th Year. 1980 Annual Report 20.Google Scholar

69 Stephen C. Halpern, Title VI and Racial Discrimination in Educational Institutions: The Unen-forced and Unenforceable Civil Rights Provisions 43 (paper presented to American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C., 1980).Google Scholar

70 Yudof, Mark C., School Desegregation: Legal Realism, Reasoned Elaboration, and Social Science Research in the Supreme Court, 42 Law & Contemp. Probs. 57, 58 (1978).Google Scholar

71 See Bell, Derrick A. Jr. Serving Two Masters: Integration Ideals and Client Interests in School Desegregation Litigation, 85 Yale L.J 470(1976); id., Brown v. Board of Education and the Interest Convergence Dilemma, 93 Harv. L. Rev. 517 (1980).Google Scholar

72 Belton, Robert, Discrimination and Affirmative Action: An Analysis of Competing Theories of Equality and Weber, 59 N.C.L. Rev. 536 (1981).Google Scholar

73 See Joel F. Handler, Ellen Jane Hollingsworth, & Howard S. Erlanger, Lawyers and the Pursuit of Legal Rights 73 (New York: Academic Press, 1978).Google Scholar

74 Joel F. Handler, Social Movements and the Legal System: A Theory of Law Reform and Social Change 28 (New York: Academic Press, 1978).Google Scholar

75 Genna Rae McNeil, Groundwork: Charles Hamilton Houston and the Struggle for Civil Rights (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983).Google Scholar

76 Vose, supra note 1, at 44.Google Scholar

77 The Legal Program and the N.A.A.C.P. Dilemma, 86 Crisis 221 (1979); Robert L. Zangrando, The NAACP Crusade Against Lynching, 1909-1950, at 166 (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1980).Google Scholar

78 See Vose, supra note 1, at 45.Google Scholar

79 347 U.S. 483 (1954).Google Scholar

80 Stephen L. Wasby, The NAACP and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund: Preliminary Observations on Conflict Between Allies (paper presented to Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, 1984, and to the National Conference of Black Political Scientists, Washington, D.C., 1984).Google Scholar

81 See id.; NAACP v. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, 559 F. Supp. 1337 (D.D.C. 1983), appeal pending (NAACP's “grant” of use of “NAACP” initials only contingent; LDF enjoined from continuing to use “NAACP” in its name).Google Scholar

82 Chayes, Abram, The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation, 89 Harv. L. Rev. 1281, 1284 (1976).Google Scholar

83 Fiss, Owen M., The Social and Political Foundations of Adjudication, 6 Law & Hum. Behav. 121, 123 (1982); see also Fiss, , Foreword: The Forms of Justice, 93 Harv. L. Rev. 1 (1979).Google Scholar

84 Michael N. Danielson, The Politics of Exclusion 164, 174, 186 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1976).Google Scholar

85 Neil K. Komesar, The Public Interest Law Firm: A Behavioral Analysis, in Weisbrod et al., supra note 27, at 239 n.78; Handler, supra note 74, at 133; Danielson, supra note 84, at 165–67.Google Scholar

86 401 U.S. 424 (1971) (violation of Title VII shown by disparate racial impact of non-job-related employment tests and requirements).Google Scholar

87 Belton, supra note 13, at 928 n. 115.Google Scholar

88 Handler, supra note 74, at 147.Google Scholar

89 Orfield, supra note 31, at 375-76; Yudof, supra note 70, at 58.Google Scholar

90 Halpern, supra note 69, at 15.Google Scholar

91 Leubsdorf, supra note 41, at 40.Google Scholar

92 O'Connor, supra note 4, at 23.Google Scholar

93 Grossman, supra note 39, at 431.Google Scholar

94 Tushnet, supra note 10, at 9–16 to 9–17.Google Scholar

95 Shields, Geoffrey & Spector, L. Sanford, Opening Up the Suburbs: Notes on a Movement for Social Change, 2 Yale Rev. L. & Soc. Action 303 (1982).Google Scholar

96 Heck, Edward V. & Stewart, Joseph Jr., Ensuring Access to Justice: The Role of Interest Group Lawyers in the 60′s Campaign for Civil Rights, 66 Judicature 84, 92 (1982).Google Scholar

97 Orfield, supra note 31, at 372.Google Scholar

98 Shields & Spector, supra note 95, at 311.Google Scholar

99 Sorauf, supra note 5, at 59.Google Scholar

100 See Kluger, supra note 2.Google Scholar

101 Belton, supra note 13, at 925.Google Scholar

102 See also id. at 925–26.Google Scholar

103 Id. at 926.Google Scholar

104 Id. at 929.Google Scholar

105 Id.Google Scholar

106 Id. at 952.Google Scholar

107 Meltsner, supra note 13, at 73.Google Scholar

108 Id. at 76.Google Scholar

109 Id. at 109.Google Scholar

110 Id. at 106.Google Scholar

111 Id. at 37.Google Scholar

112 See Heck & Stewart, supra note 96.Google Scholar

113 Sorauf, supra note 5, at 42.Google Scholar

114 Calhoun v. Cook, 332 F. Supp. 804 (N.D. Ga. 1971). See also Orfield, supra note 31, at 400–402.Google Scholar

115 Orfield, supranote 31, at 375.Google Scholar

116 Handler et al., supra note 27, at 272.Google Scholar

117 Orfield, supra note 31, at 367.Google Scholar

118 Grossman, supra note 39, at 431; Belton, supra note 13, at 939.Google Scholar

119 Personal communication.Google Scholar

120 Stewart, Joseph Jr., & Heck, Edward V., The Day-to-Day Activities of Interest Group Lawyers, 64 Soc. Sci. Q. 173, 177 (1983).Google Scholar

121 Greenberg, supra note 13, at 35.Google Scholar

122 Grossman, Joel B. & Sarat, Austin, Litigation in the Federal Courts: A Comparative Perspective, 9 Law & Soc'y Rev. 321, 327 (1975); Danielson, supra note 84, at 164.Google Scholar

123 Sorauf, supra note 5, at 112.Google Scholar

124 411 U.S. 1 (1973) (property tax funding of public education not Fourteenth Amendment violation despite differences in financial resources from such funding).Google Scholar

125 Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977) (corporal punishment in public schools not violation of Eighth Amendment; remedy for excessive force is through state action for assault).Google Scholar

126 Sorauf, supra note 5, at 112.Google Scholar

127 Brennan, William J. Jr., State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights, 90 Harv. L. Rev. 489 (1977).Google Scholar

128 U.S. district judge in Mississippi openly hostile to blacks and their civil rights claims.Google Scholar

129 There is a parallel between such preferences and attorney preference for federal or state courts in diversity-of-citizenship cases. See Bumiller, Kristin, Choice of Forum in Diversity Cases: Analysis of a Survey and Implications for Reform, 15 Law & Soc'y Rev. 749 (198081). See also Perlstein, Jolanta Juszkiewicz, Lawyers' Strategies and Diversity Jurisdiction, 3 Law & Pol'y Q. 321 (1981).Google Scholar

130 A. James Lee & Burton A. Weisbrod, Public Interest Law Activities in Education, in Weisbrod et al., supra note 27, at 313, 321.Google Scholar

131 Sorauf, supra note 5, at 111.Google Scholar

132 O'Connor, supra note 4, at 4–5.Google Scholar

133 McGautha v. California, 402 U.S. 183 (1971) [and Crampton v. Ohio] (allowing jury unlimited discretion to apply death penalty not constitutional violation, either in single trial procedure [Crampton] or bifurcated trial [McGautha]).Google Scholar

134 Meltsner, supra note 13, at 229.Google Scholar

135 412 U.S. 507 (1973) (city not subject to jurisdiction for purposes of equitable relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983).Google Scholar

136 DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974) (challenge 10 affirmative action program held moot because plaintiff close to graduation).Google Scholar

137 O'Connor, Karen & Epstein, Lee, The Importance of Interest Group Involvement in Employment Discrimination Litigation, 25 How. L.J. 709, 714–15 (1982).Google Scholar

138 LDF 1981/1982 Annual Report, supra note 45.Google Scholar

139 Galanter, Marc, Why the “Haves” Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change, 9 Law & Soc'y Rev. 95, 98–103 (1974).Google Scholar

140 Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) (special admissions program reserving places for minorities is violation of Equal Protection Clause although race may be taken into account in admissions programs).Google Scholar

141 Id.Google Scholar

142 United Steelworkers of Am. v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193 (1979) (apprenticeship program, with racial quotas, voluntarily agreed to by company and union as part of affirmative action program, in absence of judicial finding of discrimination, valid under Title VII).Google Scholar

143 Vose, supra note 1; Kluger, supra note 2.Google Scholar

144 401 U.S. 424(1971).Google Scholar

145 Belton, supra note 13, at 940.Google Scholar

146 Id. at 939. Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 292 F. Supp. 243 (M.D.N.C. 1968).Google Scholar

147 420 F.2d 1225 (4th Cir. 1970).Google Scholar

148 Belton, supra note 13, at 941.Google Scholar

149 420 F.2d at 1237.Google Scholar

150 Belton, supra note 13, at 942.Google Scholar

151 396 U .S. 229 (1969) (refusal of board of community park to approve assignment of membership to black lessor of house in neighborhood is violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1982).Google Scholar

152 392 U.S. 409 (1968) (42 U.S.C. § 1982 applies to all racial discrimination in sale/rental of property and is proper congressional action to enforce Thirteenth Amendment; refusal to sell house to mixed-race couple because of race is violation of 42 U.S.C. 5 1982).Google Scholar

153 Orfield, supra note 31, at 374.Google Scholar

154 426 U.S. 229 (1976) (intent to discriminate must be shown to prove violation of equal protection in employment discrimination action).Google Scholar

155 416 U.S. 351 (1974) (property tax exemption for widows but not for widowers held not violative of Equal Protection Clause).Google Scholar

156 420 U.S. 636 (1975) (Social Security Act distinction granting survivors' benefits to widow and minor children but only to minor children and not to widower violation of equal protection under Fifth Amendment).Google Scholar

157 O'Connor & Epstein, supra note 137, at 718, 714 11.32.Google Scholar

158 Greenberg, supra note 13, at 29.Google Scholar

159 Id. at 27.Google Scholar

160 Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948).Google Scholar

161 McGhee v. Sipes, decided together with Shelley v. Kraemer, id.Google Scholar

162 Vose, supra note 1, at 157.Google Scholar

163 United States v. Board of School Comm'r, 368 F. Supp. 1191 (S.D. Ind. 1973), aff'd, 503 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 929 (1975) (Indianapolis II).Google Scholar

164 Orfield, supra note 31, at 373.Google Scholar

165 Morgan v. Henningan, 379 F. Supp. 410 (1). Mass. 1974); Morgan v. Kerrigan, 509 F.2d 580 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 963 (1974) et seq.Google Scholar

166 Clement E. Vose, Constitutional Change: Amendment Politics arid Supreme Court Litigation Since 1900, at 321 (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1972).Google Scholar

167 Casper, supra note 40, at 142–43.Google Scholar

168 Rabin, supra note 26, at 217.Google Scholar

169 Bell, Serving Two Masters, supra note 71, at 476.Google Scholar

170 Caper, supra note 40, at 142.Google Scholar

171 See, e.g., Vose, supra note 166, at 315.Google Scholar

172 See Bell, Serving Two Masters, supra note 71, at 476 11.19.Google Scholar

173 McKay, supra note 29, at 12.Google Scholar

174 Vose, supra note 166, at 334.Google Scholar

175 Handler et al., supra note 27, at 274.Google Scholar

176 See NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963) (organization's right lo advise members of violations of their constitutional rights and to offer legal assistance to redress violations of those rights protected as part of right of association); In re Primus, 436 U.S. 412 (1978) (organization's right to advise individual of availability of legal help to bring suit to secure rights protected under right of association).Google Scholar

177 Bell, Serving Two Masters, supra note 71, at 512.Google Scholar

178 Handler, supra note 74, at 33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

179 Bell, Serving Two Masters, supra note 71, at 476–77, 483, 493.Google Scholar

180 Handler, supra note 74, at 32; see also Sorauf, supra note 5, at 156–67.Google Scholar

181 See Greenberg, supra note 13, at 38.Google Scholar

182 Id.Google Scholar

183 See Bell, Serving Two Masters, supra note 71, at 513.Google Scholar

184 Id. at 504.Google Scholar

185 Belton, supra note 13, at 932, 934.Google Scholar

186 This is said to have occurred in the Atlanta school desegregation controversy, where dissenting members of the black community pressed for full desegregation rather than a more limited settlement. Calhoun v. Cook, 332 F. Supp. 804 (N.D. Ga. 1971). See Leubsdorf, supra note 41, at 92–93Google Scholar

187 Bell, Serving Two Masters, supra note 71, at 504, 506.Google Scholar

188 Vose, supra note 166, at 307.Google Scholar

189 Casper, supra note 40, at 143.Google Scholar

190 O'Connor, supra note 4, at 26; see also Greenberg, supra note 13, at 31.Google Scholar

191 Casper, supra note 40, at 67.Google Scholar

192 LDF, 1980 Annual Report, supra note 68.Google Scholar

193 Bell, Serving Two Masters, supra note 71, at 482.Google Scholar

194 Sanders et al., supra note 20, at 420.Google Scholar

195 Handler et al., supra note 73.Google Scholar

196 Rathjen, Gregory J., Lawyers and the Appellate Choice: An Analysis of Factors Affecting the Decision to Appeal, 6 Am. Pol. Q. 387 (1978); Ann Kay, Susan, Sex Differences in the Attitudes of a Future Elite, 1 Women & Pol. 35 (1980).Google Scholar

197 Casper, supra note 40, at 74–75.Google Scholar

198 On the weights given by attorneys practicing in federal appeals courts to factors in the equation leading to a decision to appeal or not to appeal, see Rathjen, supra note 196, at 397.Google Scholar

199 Scheingold, supra note 15, at 5.Google Scholar

200 Id. at 95.Google Scholar

201 Id. at 95, 151, 197; Bell, Serving Two Masters, supra note 71, at 483.Google Scholar

202 Handler, supra note 74, at 112.Google Scholar

203 Armand Derfner, The Implications of the City of Mobile Case for Extension of the Voting Rights Act, in The Right to Vote: A Rockefeller Foundation Conference, Apr. 22-23, 1981, at 194-210 (New York: Rockefeller Foundation, 1981).Google Scholar

204 Heck & Stewart, supra note 96, at 94.Google Scholar

205 See Stephen C. Halpern, Assessing the Litigative Role of ACLU Chapters, in Stephen L. Wasby, ed., Civil Liberties: Policy and Policy-making 159–68 (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1976).Google Scholar

206 Scheingold, supra note 15, at 151.Google Scholar

207 Neier, supra note 62, at 44.Google Scholar

208 Sorauf, supra note 5, at 95.Google Scholar

209 See Wasby, supra note 80.Google Scholar

210 Martin Shapiro, Toward a Theory of Stare Decisis, 1 J. Legal Studies 125 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

211 Albemarie Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (1975) (back pay appropriate remedy for Title VII violations).Google Scholar

212 426 U.S. 299 (1976).Google Scholar

213 Greenberg, supra note 13, at 41.Google Scholar

214 Debra S. Kalmuss, Mark Cheder, & Joseph A. Sanders, The Impact of the School Desegregation Cases on the Relation Between Scientific Evidence and Legal Theory, in Daniel Monti, ed., New Directions for Testing and Measurement: Impact of Desegregation at 21,27 (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1982).Google Scholar

215 See Stephen L. Wasby, The Impact of the United States Supreme Court: Some Perspectives (Homewood, Ill: Dorsey Press, 1970); and Charles A. Johnson & Bradley C. Canon, Judicial Policies: Implementation and Impact (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1984).Google Scholar

216 418 U.S. 717, at 753 (1974) (remedy for school segregation limited to city in which official segregation occurred; no cross-district busing unless other districts also discriminated).Google Scholar

217 Meltsner, supra note 13, at 28–29.Google Scholar

218 Sloane, Martin E., Milliken v. Bradley in Perspective, 4 J. L. & Educ. 209, 209 (1975).Google Scholar

219 Michael Abbott, C. & Peters, Donald C., Fuentes v. Shevin: A Narrative of Federal Test Litigation in the Legal Services Program, 57 Iowa L. Rev. 955, 994–95 (1972).Google Scholar

220 Taylor, William L., The Supreme Court and Recent School Desegregation Cases: The Role of Social Science in a Period of Judicial Retrenchment, 42 Law & Contemp. Probs. 37, 38 (1978).Google Scholar

221 Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1,413 U.S. 189 (1973) (where plaintiffs demonstate official segregation in one part of school district, burden shifts to school officials to show nondiscriminatory basis for their actions in entire district).Google Scholar

222 Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1 (1971) (reinforcing district judge's discretion to fashion remedy in de jure school segregation cases, including the requirement of busing).Google Scholar

223 Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267 (1977) (compensatory education programs as remedy for school segregation and requirement that state contribute to funding sustained).Google Scholar

224 Neier, supra note 62, at 4.Google Scholar

225 Id. at 45. Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) (state's requirement that whites and minorities ride in separate railroad cars not a violation of equal protection; “separate but equal” case).Google Scholar

226 Stephen L. Wasby, Continuity and Change: From the Warren Court to the Burger Court (Pacific Palisades, Cal.: Goodyear Publishing, 1976); Choper, Jesse H., The Burger Court: Misperceptions Regarding Judicial Restraint and Insensitivity to Individual Rights, 30 Syracuse L. Rev. 767 (1979).Google Scholar

227 See Friedman, Leon, Up Against the Burger Court, 1 Civ. Lib. Rev. 156 (1973).Google Scholar

228 Greenberg, supra note 13, at 38.Google Scholar

229 Id.Google Scholar

230 Id. at 12–13; see also Neier, supra note 62, at 39–45.Google Scholar

231 International Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1977) (award of retroactive seniority permissible for Title VII violation but may not be extended prior to date of passage of statute).Google Scholar

232 431 US. at 347 n.28.Google Scholar

233 Murphy, Walter F., The South Counterattacks: The Anti-NAACP Laws, 12 W. Pol. Q. 371 (1959); Birkby, Robert H. & Murphy, Walter F., Interest Group Conflict in the Judicial Arena: The First Amendment and Group Access to the Courts, 42 Tex. L. Rev. 1018 (1964). See supra note 176.Google Scholar

234 NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 455 U.S. 904 (1982) (peaceful boycott of businesses is protected political activity; organizational liability for acts of some individuals belonging to organization limited).Google Scholar

235 422 U.S. 490 (1975) (standing to challenge municipality's restrictive zoning practices limited to those who can show specific injury, such as developer denied particular rezoning request).Google Scholar

236 See Danielson, supra note 84, at 168.Google Scholar

237 408 U.S. 1 (1972).Google Scholar

238 United States v. Richardson, 418 U.S. 166 (1974).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

239 Neier, supra note 62.Google Scholar

240 423 U.S. 362 (1976) (federal court exceeded authority in requiring changes in police disciplinary procedure on basis of complaints against few individual officers).Google Scholar

241 402 U.S. 417 (1971) (requirement of election to approve low-income housing in municipality not constitutional violation).Google Scholar

242 Danielson, supra note 84, at 181.Google Scholar

243 444 U.S. 1 (1974) (municipality may, under zoning power, validly limit number of unrelated individuals living together)Google Scholar

244 Danielson, supra note 84, at 183.Google Scholar

245 See Belton, Robert, Burdens of Pleading and Proof in Discrimination Cases: Toward a Theory of Procedural Justice, 34 Vand. L. Rev. 1205 (1981); Belton, supra note 72; Taylor, William L., Desegregating Urban School Systems After Milliken v. Bradley, 21 Wayne L. Rev. 751 (1975).Google Scholar

246 426 US. 229 (1976).Google Scholar

247 LDF 1981/1982 Annual Report, supra note 45, at 2, on American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson, 456 U.S. 63 (1982) (protection of bona fide seniority systems under Title V11 extends to systems adopted after effective date of statute).Google Scholar

248 Id. at 3, on Texas Dep't of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (allocating burden of proof in employment discrimination cases; employer need only explain nondiscriminatory reason for action by preponderance of evidence after plaintiff's prima facie case).Google Scholar

249 446 U.S. 55 (1980) (intent to discriminate in establishment or maintenance of at-large city elections necessary to prove violation of Fifteenth Amendment or 5 2 of Voting Rights Act).Google Scholar

250 45 8 U. S. 613 (1982) (upholding district court finding of intentional discrimination in maintenance of at-large county election system).Google Scholar

251 Gabe Kaimowitz, Response, in The Right to Vote supra note 203, at 160, 162.Google Scholar

252 377 U.S. 533 (1964) (both houses of state legislatures must be apportioned on one-person, one-vote basis).Google Scholar

253 Frank R. Parker, The Impact of City of Mobile v. Bolden and Strategies and Legal Arguments for Voting Rights Cases in Its Wake, in The Right to Vote, supra note 203, at 98, 118.Google Scholar

254 LDF 1981/1982 Annual Report, supra note 45, at 10.Google Scholar

255 Steve Suitts, Blacks in the Political Arithmetic After Mobile: A Case Study of North Carolina, in The Right to Vote, supra note 203, at 47.Google Scholar

256 339 U.S. 629 (1950) (racial segregation by state university law school invalid under Fourteenth Amendment as not providing “separate but equal” education because of intangible factors).Google Scholar

257 313 U.S. 299 (1941) (primary election an integral part of election process and thus subject to regulation by government).Google Scholar

258 Vose, supra note 166, at 321; see also id. at 305, 312–13.Google Scholar

259 See supra note 165.Google Scholar

260 Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, 314 U.S. 189 (1973).Google Scholar

261 Dayton Bd. of Educ. v. Brinkman, 433 U.S. 406 (1977) (finding of cumulative violation based on isolated incidents not justified, and did not justify systemwide remedy).Google Scholar

262 Dayton Bd. of Educ. v. Brinkman, 443 US. 526 (1979) (sustaining findings that school board maintained dual system in 1954 and thereafter; finding of systemwide effect sustained). See also Columbus Bd. of Educ. v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449 (1979) (same).Google Scholar

263 Bell, supra note 71, at 492.Google Scholar

264 Neier, supra note 62, at 181–82.Google Scholar

265 422 US. 563(1975).Google Scholar

266 See Galanter, supra note 139.Google Scholar