Court Opinion

ID: 9690935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 19:52:52.291644+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:06.788320
License: Public Domain

PARKER, Chief Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in so much of the decision of the Court as holds that the Court has jurisdiction of the cause and that same should not be dismissed. I dissent from that part of the decision which stays proceedings pending exhaustion of state administrative and judicial remedies. I think that the Court should proceed to grant declaratory and injunctive relief to the plaintiffs in application of the principle stated by Chief Justice Marshall in Cohens v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 404, 5 L.Ed. 257 that “We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given”. One of the most important features of that ordered liberty which is guaranteed by our Constitution is that certain fundamental rights of the individual, including freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, shall not be denied or abridged by the exercise of governmental power, national or state. And no more important duty is imposed upon the courts of the United States than to protect these fundamental rights of the individual citizen against impairment by the exercise of governmental power.
I recognize, of course, that, in the application of the rule of comity, a federal court should stay action pending *568action by the courts of a state, where it is called upon to enjoin the enforcement of a state statute which has not been interpreted by the state courts, and where the statute is susceptible of an interpretation which would avoid constitutional invalidity. As the federal courts are bound by the interpretation placed by the highest court of a state upon a statute of that state, they should not enjoin the enforcement of a statute as violative of the Constitution in advance of such an interpretation, if it is reasonably possible for the statute to be given án interpretation which will render it constitutional. This is all that is held by the Supreme Court in such cases as Shipman v. Du Pre, 339 U.S. 321, 70 S.Ct. 640, 94 L.Ed. 877 and A. F. of L. v. Watson, 327 U.S. 582, 596, 598, 66 S.Ct. 761, 90 L.Ed. 873. The Supreme Court in Alabama Public Service Commission v. Southern Railway Co., 341 U.S. 341, 344, 71 S.Ct. 762, 95 L.Ed. 1002, recognizes that proceedings should be stayed only where there is involved “construction of a state statute so ill-defined that a federal court should hold the case pending a definitive construction of that statute in the state courts”. In the case of Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385, 68 S.Ct. 1156, 92 L. Ed. 1460, in which the District Court had upheld the constitutionality of a state statute, the Supreme Court reversed the decision without staying proceedings for action by the state courts. And in Doud v. Hodge, 350 U.S. 485, 76 S.Ct. 491, 100 L.Ed. 577, the Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of a case by a District Court, 127 F.Supp. 853, where the dismissal was granted on the ground that a statute alleged to be unconstitutional had not been passed upon by the courts of the state. The rule as to stay of proceedings pending interpretation of a state statute by the courts of the state can have no application to a case, such as we have here, where the meaning of the statute is perfectly clear and where no interpretation which could possibly be placed upon it by the Supreme Court of the-state could render it constitutional.
The statute, the constitutionality of which is here questioned, is as follows:
“Section 1. Thirty days after the effective date of this act it shall be unlawful for any member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People to be employed by the State, school district, county or any municipality thereof, and such prohibition against employment by the State, school district, county or any municipality thereof shall continue so. long as membership in the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is maintained.
“Section 2. The board of trustees of any public school or State supported college shall be authorized to demand of any teacher or other employee of the school, who is suspected of being a member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, that he submit to the board a written statement under oath setting forth whether or not he is a member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the immediate employer of any employee of the State or of any county or municipality thereof is similarly authorized in the case any employee is suspected of being a member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. Any person refusing to submit a statement as provided herein, shall be summarily dismissed.
“Section 3. A person dismissed from, or declared ineligible for, employment under the provisions of this act, may within four months of such dismissal or declaration of ineligibility be entitled to petition for an order to show cause before any circuit court of the State why a hearing on such charges should not be had. Until *569"the final judgment on said hearing is entered, the order to show cause shall stay the effect of dismissal or ineligibility based on the provisions of this act. The hearing •shall consist of the taking of testimony in open court with opportunity for cross examination. The burden of sustaining the validity of an order of dismissal or declaration of ineligibility by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence shall be upon the person making such dismissal or declaration of ineligibility.
“Section 4. Any person employing any individual contrary to the provisions of this act shall be subject to a fine of not exceeding one hundred dollars for each separate offense.”
There is no finding in the preamble to the statute,* nor is there any contention, that it is the purpose of the National Association for the Advance-: ment of Colored People to overthrow the government by force and violence or to engage in any other form of criminal conduct. The organization, as its name implies, is engaged in activities for advancing the interests of Colored People; and this has involved its engaging in matters of public controversy such as the segregation cases, the results of which have been very unpopular in some sections. This, however, is no reason why it may be proscribed by law or its members denied the right of public employment. The right to join organizations which seek by lawful means to support and further what their members regard as in the public interest or in the interest of a particular part of the public, is protected by the constitutional guarantees of free speech and freedom of assembly; and such right is one of the bulwarks of liberty and of social progress. The fact that organizations may render themselves unpopular with the majority in a community is no reason why the majority may use its power to enact legislation denying to their members the fundamental rights of constitutional liberty. As was well said by Chief Justice Hughes in De Jonge v. State of Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, 364-365, 57 S. Ct. 255, at page 260, 81 L.Ed. 278:
“Freedom of speech and of the press are fundamental rights which are safeguarded by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. [Citing cases.] The right *570of peaceable assembly is a right cognate to those of free speech and free press and is equally fundamental. As this Court said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 552, 23 L.Ed. 588: ‘The very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on the part of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public affairs and to petition for a redress of grievances.’ The First Amendment of the Federal Constitution expressly guarantees that right against abridgment by Congress. But explicit mention there does not argue exclusion elsewhere. For the right is one that cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all civil and political institutions — principles which the Fourteenth Amendment embodies in the general terms of its due process clause. [Citing cases.]
“These rights may be abused by using speech or press or assembly in order to incite to violence and crime. The people through their Legislatures may protect themselves against that abuse. But the legislative intervention can find constitutional justification only by dealing with the abuse. The rights themselves must not be curtailed. The greater the importance of safeguarding the community from incitements to the overthrow of our institutions by force and violence, the more imperative is the need to preserve inviolate the constitutional rights of free speech, free press and free assembly in order to maintain the opportunity for free political discussion, to the end that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be obtained by peaceful means. Therein lies the security of the Republic, the very foundation of constitutional government.”
See also Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 45 S.Ct. 571, 69 L.Ed. 1070; West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 641-642, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 87 L.Ed. 1628; Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 530-531, 65 S.Ct. 315, 89 L.Ed. 430.
In Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 73 S.Ct. 215, 219, 97 L.Ed. 216, the Supreme Court held violative of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment a state law requiring of state employees as a condition of employment an oath that they were not members of an organization listed by the Attorney General of the United States as subversive. The state supreme court had held that mere membership in such an organization was a disqualification, without knowledge of its criminal purposes. In holding the act violative of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the court said:
“Under the Oklahoma Act [51 O. S.1951 §§ 37.1-37.8], the fact of association alone determines disloyalty and disqualification; it matters not whether association existed innocently or knowingly. To thus inhibit individual freedom of movement is to stifle the flow of democratic expression and controversy at one of its chief sources. We hold that the distinction observed between the case at bar and Garner, Adler and Gerende [Gerende v. Board of Supervisors of Elections, 341 U.S. 56, 71 S.Ct. 565, 95 L.Ed. 745] is decisive. Indiscriminate classification of innocent with knowing activity must fall as an assertion of arbitrary power. The oath offends due process.”
In that case the Supreme Court adverted to its statement in United Public Workers of America (C.I.O.) v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 67 S.Ct. 556, 91 L.Ed. 754, upholding the Hatch Act, 18 U.S. C.A. § 595 et seq., that Congress could not “enact a regulation providing that no Republican, Jew Or Negro shall be appointed to federal office, or that no *571federal employee shall attend Mass or take any active part in missionary work.”
And in his concurring opinion Mr. Justice Frankfurter used the following language, which is peculiarly pertinent here, viz.:
“The Constitution of the United States does not render the United States or the States impotent to guard their governments against destruction by enemies from within. It does not preclude measures of self-protection against anticipated overt acts of violence. Solid threats to our kind of government • — manifestations of purposes that reject argument and the free ballot as the means for bringing about changes and promoting progress— may be met by preventive measures before such threats reach fruition. However, in considering the constitutionality of legislation like the statute before us it is necessary to keep steadfastly in mind what it is that is to be secured. Only thus will it be evident why the Court has found that the Oklahoma law violates those fundamental principles of liberty ‘which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions’ and as such are imbedded in the due process of law which no State may offend.”
In the very recent case of Slochower v. Board of Higher Education, 350 U.S. 551, 76 S.Ct. 637, 100 L.Ed. 692, the Supreme Court held squarely that public employment might not be denied on the ground that a person had exercised a right under the Constitution. In that case a professor in a publicly maintained college was discharged because he had invoked his right under the Fifth Amendment not to answer a question propounded in a Congressional inquiry. The Supreme Court followed its decision in the case of Wieman v. Updegraff and distinguished the cases of Adler v. Board of Education, 342 U.S. 485, 72 S.Ct. 380, 96 L.Ed. 517 and Garner v. Board of Public Works of City of Los Angeles, 341 U.S. 716, 720, 71 S. Ct. 909, 95 L.Ed. 1317, upon which defendants rely. The court said [350 U.S. 551, 76 S.Ct. 639]:
“The problem of balancing the State’s interest in the loyalty of those in its service with the traditional safeguards of individual rights is a continuing one. To state that a person does not have a constitutional right to government employment is only to say that he must comply with reasonable, lawful, and nondiscriminatory terms laid down by the proper authorities. Adler v. Board of Education, 342 U.S. 485, 72 S.Ct. 380, 96 L.Ed. 517, upheld the New York Feinberg Law which authorized the public school authorities to dismiss employees who, after notice and hearing, were found to advocate the overthrow of the Government by unlawful means, or who were unable to explain satisfactorily membership in certain organizations found to have that aim. Likewise Garner v. Board of Public Works of City of Los Angeles, 341 U.S. 716, 720, 71 S.Ct. 909, 912, 95 L.Ed. 1317, upheld the right of the city to inquire of its employees as to ‘matters that may prove relevant to their fitness and suitability for the public service’, including their membership, past and present, in the Communist Party or the Communist Political Association. There it was held that the city had power to discharge employees who refused to file an affidavit disclosing such information to the school authorities.
“But in each of these cases it was emphasized that the State must conform to the requirements of due process. In Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S. 183, 73 S.Ct. 215, 97 L.Ed. 216, we struck down a so-called ‘loyalty oath’ because it based employability solely on the fact of membership in certain organizations. We pointed out that membership itself may be inno*572cent and held that the classification of innocent and guilty together was arbitrary. This case rests squarely on the proposition that ‘constitutional protection does extend to the public servant whose exclusion pursuant to a statute is patently arbitrary or discriminatory.’ 344 U.S. at page 192, 73 S.Ct. at page 219.”
The principle here involved is that the state may not deny a privilege because of exercise of constitutional rights. Terral v. Burke Construction Co., 257 U.S. 529, 42 S.Ct. 188, 66 L.Ed. 352; Frost (Frost Trucking Co.) v. Railroad Commission, 271 U.S. 583, 594, 46 S.Ct. 605, 70 L.Ed. 1101; Alston v. School Board of City of Norfolk, 4 Cir., 112 F.2d 992, 997, 130 A.L.R. 1506. The Court of Appeals of this Circuit, in the case last cited, quoting from the opinion in Frost (Frost Trucking Co.) V. Railroad Commission, supra, said:
“Even in the granting of a privilege, the state ‘may not impose conditions which require the relinquishment of constitutional rights. If the state may compel the surrender of one constitutional right as a condition of its favor, it may, in like manner, compel a surrender of all. It is inconceivable that guaranties embedded in the Constitution of the United States may thus be manipulated out of existence.’ ”
The plaintiffs are in a position to raise the question of the constitutionality of the statute because one of them is a member of the Association and all have been denied employment because of their refusal to answer the questions as to membership in that organization. The school authorities, may, of course, make inquiries of prospective teachers as to matters bearing upon their character and fitness to teach;.'but this is a very different thing from making inquiry as to membership in an organization which they have a right to join but membership in which, under state law, bars them of the right of employment. Just as they have a right not to be denied employment because of such membership, they have a right not to be denied employment for refusal to make oath with regard to the matter. What was required of them was not merely answers to questions but the filing of a sworn statement. This was requiring of them a “test oath” relating to membership as a condition of employment which was clearly an invasion of their constitutional rights as held in Wieman v. Updegraff, supra.
It is argued that plaintiffs are no longer employed by defendants and that they have no applications for positions pending which could be adversely affected by the statute. This is to take too narrow a view of the rights of plaintiffs, who are public school teachers by profession whose rights are invaded by the statute and the inquiries to which they have been subjected thereunder. They are seeking here a declaration as to their rights in a suit instituted against representatives of the state charged with the enforcement of the statute in the locality in which they reside, in which the provisions of the statute have been enforced against them, in which they desire to teach and in which they would naturally seek employment as teachers in the future.
In the case of Alston v. School Board of City of Norfolk, supra, 4 Cir., 112 F.2d 992, 130 A.L.R. 1506, the Court of Appeals of the Fourth Circuit had before it a case in which injunction was sought against fixing the salaries of Negro teachers at a lower rate than that of white teachers. It was argued that plaintiffs had no right to maintain the suit because employment was optional with the school board and they had entered into contracts for the current year at the rate fixed by the discriminatory practice. The court rejected this contention in language which is appropriate here, saying:
“We come, then, to the second question, i. e., do plaintiffs as Negro teachers holding certificates qualifying them to teach in the *573public schools of Norfolk have rights which are infringed by the discrimination of which they complain? The answer to this must be in the affirmative. As teachers holding certificates from the state, plaintiffs have acquired a professional status. It is true that they are not entitled by reason of that fact alone to contracts to teach in the public schools of the state; for whether any particular one of them shall be employed to teach is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the school authorities; but they are entitled to have the compensation for positions for which they may apply, and which will unquestionably be awarded to some of them, fixed without unconstitutional discrimination on account of race. As pointed out by Judge Chesnut, in Mills v. Lowndes, supra [D.C., 26 F.Supp. 792], they are qualified school teachers and have the civil right, as such, to pursue their profession without being subjected to discriminatory legislation on account of race or color. It is no answer to this to say that the hiring of any teacher is a matter resting in the discretion of the school authorities. Plaintiffs, as teachers qualified and subject to employment by the state, are entitled to apply for the positions and to have the discretion of the authorities exercised lawfully and without unconstitutional discrimination as to the rate of pay to be awarded them, if their applications are accepted.
“Nor do we think that the fact that plaintiffs have entered into contracts with the school board for the current year at the rate fixed by the discriminatory practice precludes them from asking relief. What the effect of such contracts may be on right to compensation for the current year, we need not decide, since plaintiffs are not insisting upon additional compensation for the current year and their prayer for relief asks'a broad declaration of rights and injunctive relief for the future. As qualified teachers holding certificates, rthey have rights as above indicated which are not confined to the contract for the current year, i. e., the right to apply for positions in the future and to have the Board award the positions without unconstitutional discrimination as to the rate of pay.”
It is argued also that plaintiffs are not entitled to invoke the process of this court because they have not exhausted administrative remedies and that at all events they should proceed in the state courts as the legislation in question has not been before that court for interpretation. As to the latter contention, it is perfectly clear, as heretofore pointed out, that there is no ambiguity in the statute and that no interpretation which could be placed upon it by the Supreme Court of the state would render it constitutional and that consequently there is no reason to stay proceedings in the federal court while the state courts are giving it consideration. Likewise, as to exhaustion of administrative remedies, there is no reason to stay proceedings in the federal court for exhaustion of remedies under the statute, when no remedy could possibly cure the basic defect of unconstitutionality. Furthermore, the remedy provided by the statute is not administrative but judicial; and it is well settled that judicial remedies in state courts need not be exhausted before resorting to a federal court. Lane v. Wilson, 307 U.S. 268, 59 S.Ct. 872, 83 L.Ed. 1281; Carson v. Warlick, 4 Cir., 238 F.2d 724. , The contention that there is an adequate remedy at law is manifestly without merit since plaintiffs obviously cannot recover damages for breach of a contract that has not been made and any recovery of damages under the civil rights statute would be speculative and problematical. Only by declaratory and injunctive relief can *574they obtain any adequate protection of their rights which have been invaded by the statute and the action taken thereunder.
As to the relief which the Court should grant, plaintiffs are not asking an award of damages and any question with regard thereto is not before us. The action is not one in which the court could direct that the plaintiffs be restored to the positions formerly held by them in view of the fact that their term of employment ended with the school year in June 1956 and they did not seek reemployment for the succeeding year. The •court can and should, however, protect the rights of plaintiffs for the future by declaring the statute unconstitutional and enjoining the defendants from enforcing it against plaintiffs either by denying them employment because of membership in the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People or requiring them as a condition of employment to make affidavit or answer •questions with regard to such membership. In my opinion, decree to that effect should be entered without awaiting action in the state courts, as the statute is unambiguous and clearly unconstitutional.

 The preamble to the statute is as follows:
“Whereas, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has, through its program and leaders in the State of South Carolina, disturbed the peace and tranquility which has long existed between the White and Negro races, and has threatened the progress and increased understanding between Negroes and Whites; and
“Whereas, the National Association for. the Advancement of Colored People has . encouraged and agitated the members of ' the Negro race in the belief that their children were not receiving educational opportunities equal to those accorded white children, and has urged the members of the Negro race to exert every effort to break down all racial barriers existing between the two races in schools, public transportation facilities and society in general; and
“Whereas, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has made a strenuous effort to imbue the members of the Negro race with the belief that they are the subject of economic and social strangulation which will forever bar Negroes from improving their station in life and raising their standard of living to that enjoyed by the White race; and
“Whereas, the General Assembly believes that in view of the known teachings of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the constant pressure exerted on its members contrary to the principles upon which the economic and social life of our State rests, and that the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is so insidious in its propaganda and the fostering of those ideas designed to produce a constant state of turmoil between the races, that membership in such an organization is wholly incompatible with the peace, tranquility and progress that all citizens have a right to enjoy. Now, therefore,”.