James H. Meredith v. Charles Dickson Fair, United States of America, Amicus Curiae and v. State of Mississippi

328 F.2d 586, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3875
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided October 19, 1962·No. 19475_1·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinions

ORDER AND JUDGMENT ON THE MOTION OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI TO DISSOLVE THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 25, 1962, TO DISMISS THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ROSS R. BARNETT and PAUL B. JOHNSON, JR., and ORDER AND JUDGMENT ON MOTION OF APPELLANT and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AMICUS CURIAE, PETITIONER, FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.

This matter came on for hearing on October 12, 1962, pursuant to an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be granted against the named Respondents, and on a motion subsequently filed by the State of Mississippi to dissolve the temporary restraining order entered by this Court on September 25, 1962, and to dismiss the pending contempt proceedings which had resulted in a judgment of this Court finding respondent, Ross R. Barnett, guilty of civil contempt. The United States, Amicus Curiae, by designation of the Court, as petitioner herein, named all of the respondents whose names are included in the caption of this order. The appellant named some but not all of the said respondents but did not name the State of Mississippi as a party.

Petitioners introduced oral testimony and documentary evidence which fully sustained the allegations of the petition. Respondents all appeared by counsel. Neither the State of Mississippi nor any other respondent made any factual showing in an effort to contradict the allegations of fact or the testimony tendered on behalf of petitioners supporting said' allegations. The respondents contend that these petitions for injunction, as well as the petitions for temporary restraining order against the parties herein ■named undertook to make additional parties in an equity cause on appeal, as to which none of said parties had had an opportunity to contest the judgment of the trial court or the judgment of this Court which resulted in the injunction of July 28, 1962. Those judgments required the defendants in the original complaint, the administrative officials and the Board of Trustees of the University of Mississippi to admit James H. Meredith as a student and to permit his continued attendance as a student on the same basis as all other students.

The posture of this case at the time these motions for preliminary injunction and the accompanying motions for temporary restraining order were filed, is that this Court had issued its injunction, above referred to, prohibiting the officials of the University and the Trustees- of the State Institutions of Higher Learning of the State of Mississippi from interfering with the admission of James H. Meredith and his continuance as a student in the University of Mississippi, and also prohibiting certain of the defendants now before the Court from further prosecuting criminal proceedings against the said Meredith; whereupon, it was alleged in the petition of the United States, the State of Mississippi, through its official state policy, pursuant to actions of its Legislature, and through the actions of its Governor by proclamation, and all of the other respondents, were then engaged in actively frustrating the execution of this Court’s injunction against the officials of the University. These proceedings,. [588] therefore, are purely ancillary -to the original lawsuit, and this Court has ample power to proceed against any party, including the State of Mississippi, which is shown to be engaged in a wilful, intentional effort to frustrate this Court’s injunction.

The motion to dissolve the restraining order and the motion to dismiss the contempt proceedings by the Respondents are, therefore, denied.

The ruling just stated equally disposes of the contention made by the respondents that this Court is now powerless to issue the preliminary injunction. We, therefore, hold that the Court has the power to issue this injunction against the persons not previously named as defendants in the main suit to prevent their active interference with this Court’s prior injunctions.

The evidence adduced before this Court, neither attacked by respondents nor contended by them to be legally insufficient to warrant the granting of the relief sought, establishes the following facts:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

James H. Meredith v. Charles Dickson Fair, United States of America, Amicus Curiae and v. State of Mississippi, 328 F.2d 586, 1962 U.S. App. LEXIS 3875 (5th Cir. 1962).

328 F.2d 586 (James H. Meredith v. Charles Dickson Fair, United States of America, Amicus Curiae and v. State of Mississippi) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Moore v. JUDICIAL INQUIRY COM'N OF STATE
891 So. 2d 848 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2004)
Glassroth v. Moore
347 F.3d 916 (Eleventh Circuit, 2003)
MHS v. Halifax Hospice
689 So. 2d 373 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
NOW v. Operation Rescue
816 F. Supp. 729 (District of Columbia, 1993)
Hobson v. Brennan
625 F. Supp. 459 (District of Columbia, 1985)
Palmigiano v. Garrahy
448 F. Supp. 659 (D. Rhode Island, 1978)
Reverend John M. Perkins v. State of Mississippi
455 F.2d 7 (Fifth Circuit, 1972)
Harvest v. Board of Public Instruction
312 F. Supp. 269 (M.D. Florida, 1970)
Lee v. MacOn County Board of Education
231 F. Supp. 743 (M.D. Alabama, 1964)