2

-3 ue
Los Angeles 44, California.
4
AMERISS CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
5 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BRANCH

6 By A. L. RIR= 6 C;r1 1945

257 South Spring Street 99 •
Lou Angeles 12, California 41046, grp, S
7
A .... .. .....
8 Attorneys Amiel Curiae Dep uty Clerk

9 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

10 OUTRERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 CENTRAL DIVISION

12 CON MAXIM, et al,

13 Plaintiff, No. 4292 X
14 vs. P2111 OP
15 WESTMINSTER SCHOOL DISTRICT NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD, AND
OF ORANGE COISTT, it al.,
16 I AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION,
Defendants.
17 AKICI CURIAE
18
19
20 ERAL DISTRICT COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO HEAR

21 AND D ABOVE ENTITLED ACTION.

22
A. The complaint on file herein &Rages a cause of action and
the evident', introduced at the trial supported said allege
23
Lions, based upon the violation of plaintiffs' right. for
24
themselves and for all persons similarly situated, under
25
the fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The spool-
26
fie clauses in question are the due process and equal
27
28 protection provisions. There is proof that there was

29 diserimination against persons of Mexican descent, solely

30 beams thereof, through the systematic segregation of

31 pupils of such descent in separate school buildings.

32 Thus the evidence supports the plaintiffs' claim that

1
 1 there was discrimination against a definite class of refloat,
2 hose of Mexican descent. That the discrimination violates
3 constitutional rights will be discussed at a later point
4 in this brief.
5 B. Amendment UT of the United States Constitution is the begin
6 of the rights violated. The applicable part thereof reads:
7 . nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty or property without due process of law;
9 nor day to an y person within its jurisdiction the
10 equal protection of the laws.*
11 0. United States Code, Title 28, Section 41, U.S.C.A., Seed=
12 41, clause 14, is the section conferring specific jurisdic-
13 tion on the federal district courts to entertain civil suits
14 based on the X/Y Amendment; it provides that the District
15 'Court has jurisdiction:
16 "Of all suits at law or in equity authorized by law to be
17 brought by any person to redress the deprivation, under
18 color or any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom,
19
or usage, of any State, of any right, privilege, or immu-
20
nity, secured by the Constitution of the United states,
21 or of any right secured by any law of the United Slates
22 providing for equal rights of citizens of the United
23 States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction of
24 the United States."
25 The eases supper% the proposition that there is jurisdiction
26 herein based upon the violation of rights under the Mere
27 tenth AMODOISSI. ,The language of Amendment XIV' is not
28 limited merely to the protection of persons of the colored
29 races, but applies broadly to "any person" and forbids all
30 arbitrary discrimination; not just discrimination based
31 upon rase.
32 1. In American moor Wink C o., v. Louisiana. l79 U.S.

me
 1 89, 92, (1900), which involved a license tax on a cor-
2 poration, the rule is stated as follows:
3 *The Act in question does undoubtedly discriminate
4 in favor of a certain class of refiners, but this

5 diseriMination if founded upon a reasonable distinc-

6 tion in principle, is valid. Of course if such dia.

7 orimination were purely arbitrary, oppressive or ea

8 riotous, and made to depend upon differences of solo

9 nativity, religious opinions, political affili
10 %ions or other considerationuhaving no possible con
•
11 nection with the duties of citizens as taxpayers au
12 exemptions would be pure favoritism and a denial of
13 equal protection of the laws to the less favored
14 classes."
15 Umms v. State..107 Tex. or. 879, 277 S.W. 101 (1925),
16 affirms the general rule enunciated in the Amerielgt Su
17 Refining 00. ease, supra, and reversed a conviction up
18 the grounds that Catholics as a class were excluded
19 grand juries and thus denied the convicted party equal
20 protection of the laws under the IIV Amendment.
21 Sea l s Gap R.R. v. Pennsylvania. 154 U.B. SSE, the
22 Tule is states as follows;

23 Clear and hostile demonstrations against particular

24 sons and classes, especially such as are of um

25 oharaster, unknown to the practice of our government

26 might be obnoxious to the constitutional prohibition

27 *iss*ri T. Lewis, 101 U.S. 22, 31, contains the follow
28 tag language:
29 ". . that no person or class of persons shall be
30 denied the same protection of the laws which is en-
31 joyed by other persons or other classes in the awns
32 place and in like circumstances."
 1 This language is cited with approval in Connolly v. Union

2 Sewer Pips 00., 184 U.S. 560, 559 (1901).

1pw4A1 v. Qapricia,, 201 U. 8. 638, 440, (1905), involved

4 an objection to the grand jury by a party convicted for

5 murder on the ground that lawyers, preachers, doctors,

6 engineers and firemen of railroad trains, and dentists

were expressly exoluddd from the jury, and thus there was
7
8 a violation of the ZIT Amendment. Justice Bolmsr, in

9 holding that there was no violation of the Amendment,

10 steles the Bale as foliar*:

11 nature of the classes excluded was not such

12 as was likely to affect the conduct of the members
13 jurymen, or to make them act otherwise than these

14 were drawn would set. The exclusion was not awl

15 rase or alas. Pre:flies. It does not even
16 appear that any of the defendants belonged to any of
17 the excluded classes.*
18 6. The decision of the supreme Qourt in Truax T. Reich, 859

19 U.S. 33 (1910, by ;notice Hughes, held that a State law

20 ithich prohibited the hiring of more than 80% noneeitisens

21 by employers of more than five persons was unconstitutio

22 as Wing in violation of the equal protection clause of

23 t he IXT Ameldmali. The pertinent part of the decision

24 is slated at page 39, as followag

* • • being lawfully an inhabitant of Arizona, the
25
26 emplainani is entitled ureter the Fourteenth Amendment

27 the equal protection of its laws. The description-

28 'any person within its jurisdiction' - - as it has

29 frequently been held, includes aliens. 'These 1040-

30 Visions . , said the court in liskylet v. RoPkialg t 118

31 1U.3. 356, 369 (referring to the due prowess and equal
32 protection ()lenses of the Amendment), 'are universal

mee
 in their applieetion, to all persons within the terra
2 oriel jurisdiction, without regard to any differences
3 race, of color, or of nationality, and the equal pro-
4 on of the laws is a pledge of the protection of
5 lawS,""
6 And at page al as allows
7 "Z% is sought to justify this as an exercise of the
8 er of the State to make reasonable classifications in
9 legislating to promote the health, safety, morals and
10
welfare of those within its Jurisdiction. But this
11
admitted authority, with the bread range of legislat vs
12
eretion that it implies, does not go so far as to
13
make it Possible for the State to deny to lawful inhabi-
14
tants, because of their race or nationality, the ordina
15
ens of earning a livelihood.
16 In the important ease of a v. 807 U.S. 4$6,(1959
17 the Court through Tastiest Stone discussed the matter of Juni
18 diction in some detail, especially as follows at page 526:
19 Mt argument that the phrase in the statute 'assured
20
he Constitution' refella to rights "created' rather
21 Protested" by it, is not Persuasive."
22 525:
23 all of the suits thus authorized are suits
24 arising wades a statute of the United States to redrese
25 deprivation of rights, privileges and immulitiss
26 secured by the Constitution, all are literally suits
27 sing under the Constitution or lows of the United
28
Beet it does not follow that in every mesh
29
su it the plaintiff is required by 24 (1) of the
30 BUdisial Code to allege and prove that the conetituti
31 immunity which he seeks to eradicate has a vela in
32
Mews et WOO. There are many rights and is:Mit es
 1 d by the Constitution, of which freedom of speech
2 and assembly are conspienous example*, which are not
3 cap able of money valuation, and in many instances, like
4 the present, no matt in equity could be irinlained for
5 their protection if proof of the jurisdictional amount
6 were prerequisite.•

7 page 818:
8 By treating 1 24 (14) as oonferring federal iurisdio-
9 es of suits brought under the Ant of 1871 in Shia
10 gm; asserted is inherently incapable of pecualary
11 ion, we harmani • the two parallel provisions
12 of the judicial Code, construe neither as superfluous,
13 e each a scope in conformity with its histor7
14 fest purpose."
15
16 The usi seems inescapable that the right cos-
17 the set of 1871 to maintain a suit in equity
18 in the federal courts to protect the suitor against a
19 deprivation of rights or immunities sutured by the
20. **Mutton, has been preserved,and that wherever the
21 shim immunity is one of personal liberty, not dopes.
22 n$ for its existence upon the infringement of prod-
23 petty rights; there is jurisdiction in the distriet
24 start under 24 (14) of the judicial Code to catertais
25 without proof that the amount in controversy
26 $5000."
27 t 4 States, 864 Y. 616 A 6, 1920) re (nixed
28 that the XXV Amemement prohibits diarists* ion against any
29 alas of persona in the following Innate, at page 818:
30 . The mere fast if it were such, that there were
31 as wage-earners on the jury, would not be enough to
32 itle plaintiff in error to complain. I t met aPPe
 1 that wage-earners were purposely excluded beca use
2 they were of that elass.
3 9. An tateresting Problem was raised in,Ri Statej
4 144 Fla. 177,111-7 So. 77$, ), when the person Who was
5 ogristed of accepting a bribe claimed that he belonged t
6 a politieal faction known as "Anti-ring Motion", and that

7 his !teflon was exeluded from the jury and thereby be was
8 ved of the equal protsetion of the laws. The °sort
9 lag to reveres the conviction however did affirm
10 the 1 rule that %IT Amendment prevented diserimixa-
11 tion against classes of persons, in the following laxgoage
12 at imp 774:
13 Mom these and similar eases, we glean the genera
14 e to be that any intentional and Persistent diontx-
15 against a rage or Glass of persons in the
16 Lion of a jury list to try a tortoise' ease 14
17 i on of the constitutional rights of the ecoosed,
18 and that such violation is not essumed by the feet that
19 he persons actually molested possess all the qualiiii-
20
eatione for jury duty prescribed by law. The distsviol
21 en on the basis of rea l religion, or clams oust,
22 be constant. It can have no relation to
23 on sore or less fanciful, mysterious, or
24- by no restrictions or common loyalties and
25 y shift from one faction to the Mir
26 ely shown %hal the cornet was
27 t fast.'
28 SSS U.S. RIS ( in

29 t who was som 4eted ter

30 fornia sent
31 al di
32
siotOien in siting expression

IUe
 1 antagatiaa can never justify rastriotion of civil rights,

2 although persons of Japanese descent were the subject of

3 the erstmeion order based upon their Japaaese ancestry,
4 and not because they were members of any certain ra p t. Thu'
5 Chinos members of the same race as Ispeasse were not sz

6 elude*. This ease is authority for the prop:Mitten that

7 the o nati intiaa enjoins diserimination beanie of ancestry

8 or nationality. Thus in the cited ease, persons of Japanese

9 descent; while in the ease at issue, persons of Mexican
10 decent.
11 The flag salute ease, limlitt_
tow. Mesh Tirein4a State
12 spard of pa, 31! U.S. 61,0, was a cl ass suit by members

13 of Jehovah's witnesses for themselves and for other Jehovah

14 Witnesses sot stationed as plaintiffs, under the due presets
15 clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, end the court granted.
16 plaintiffs an injumilion; and also to those of the same slags
17 as the plaintiffs.
18 See the discussion as to the
. application of the equal prate-
19 tion amass in 'Our Civil Liberties" by Osmond K. Yraenkel„
20 New TOrb Qsanset for the Americo Civil Liberties Union,
21 at page LW he states:
22 'The dal protection clause has ovi

23 noon' in various respects, for it W ota n both the

24 eitissa and the alien the individual and the corperellen,

25 and all minerilits, whether racial or religion" Well

26 as egro, for whom it was ori ginally iswilinetw

27 And main at pegs ROY he states:
28 "Me equal protection ense is
29 or the Negro /nor to the Pretettion of personal rights
30 is veld that diseriminstie without reasonable
31 basis tbelp000sifieatiett made by the lowiw
32 114 The egotism of the defeadests is state silica under the Yearteembh

m.e
 1
2 ease f v. United states, 89 L. Sd.
3 1029 (1945), the court Wined and interpreted
4 wendsr eolor of any i.e as follows, at page1041

5 "Asa of offiern Who undertake to perform their

6 offieial duties are included whether they hew to the

7 line of their authority or overstep it. If, as

8 goal d, the statute was deigned to embrace only estion

9 which the state in fast authorised, the words sunder

10 or of any law" were hardly apt words to express
11 de*.

12 at page 1545 in the eoncurr ng opinion by Zu ti

13
14 The Anendent and the legislation were not aimed
15 at rightful state action. Abuse of state power was
16 11. Limits were put to state authority, and
17 idden to pass thes,by whatoger ageny."
18
19
20
21 ra nt, as now applied to the
22 s, protests the eitilanw against the state,

23 self and all of its 'natures, Boards of adulation

24 neeptod.

25 1. liadLag eon which permitted suite against offieiale

26 of states is jit Parts knots 202 U.S. 125, 150,155.

27 A long line of oases have consistently famed this
28 em. It was held that a suit to restrain a state
29 from o %lag an unconstitutional statute
30 is not a suit against the state itself.
31 is w. Inners Loan & trust Co. 144 U.S., 542 0,

32 the following is founds

ole
 vaiid law nay be wrongfully adnin s
of the State, and so as to sake such Wait-
2
llegal burden and motion U p on the

4
'IL g. x340.
5
Zest eta
0 right gsaatted car se • the 00nsti %ion of the
7
4 states era be iapaitwad er destroyed hi a
8
tear nay be the ** from which the
9

10 s mob enastnent nay have been derived.*

4. A few hf the oasrea in *high the swat has held that the sets
11
of attain persons were sets of representative of the state,
12
to
13
14
DMINO.Ot say 3a} Qainss r. Oemirda. 502 U.B.377, 543 (MEI
*TM the ourators who are representatives of
15
the stat e in the nasegenest e state University
16
se. 1425) must be recorded as state esti
17
, $74 U.S. 592 (less). city officials
18
under the Fourteenth Amendnett.
19
0 I.01. 507 U.8. 494, (1959) Suit enjoining
20
21
td! 1. ell, A.
22
23
24
25
26
I a lseal atd o f litusatisa,
27
28
1. Zoo arts have not hesitated to Late
ash relen t rights arising under the Fourteen*
29
30
31 144* Lir1401* usat

th *nu n Junin stated at page

32
 atian if faithful. to the ideal of
1
2 on and political neutrality, will
be parti i enemy of any clams, treed, party, e
3
tationeg
4
5
Fart h atamdsttaat, as now applied to t b
6
against the gat* itself
7
stature Board. of Zanotti= not erseptedi
8
have, of course, important, afloat., and highly
9
lo tiontry funetioas, but none that they may not

11 his the limits of the Rill or Rights. Tha

12 age *duetting the young for citizenshi p is reason for

13 scrupulous protection of Gonstitstional froodoms of

14 indi^idtital, i f ws are not to strangle the fret Wad

15 is stare. and tetteh youth to diaouat isportsst

16 poissiples of our government as meri platitades..

t ask Boards are sameross and their territeri
17
jiarisdistion often small. But *mall and local ottani%
18
my feel less sense of responsibility to the Oonsti.
19
20 1, and agortie n of /say may be less Meat
fling it to account. . There are village tyrants
21
22 11 as 'into Rampdgas, but none who SOU under
r law is beyond reach of the Constitttittm
23
24
of a Rill of Rights was to withdraw
25
26 gnu subj.**s from the eigissilluas of politioal
try, to place them beyond the rash of
27
28 os and'offaials aid to establish than as

29 prlselplee to be applied the aura one's right

30 to lift, libwrty, ant property, to free spas

31 press freedom of worshi p and assombly, and other

32 cal rights may not be submitted to Totes,
 1 they d on the floss of no elections."
2 smut Ix del Saints v. Canada, 3915 U.S. 339. The
3 argument was made that the federal 4ourt should not inter-
4 re with ettneational matters as it was a State matter, bu
5 Sapiens Court did not hesitate to direst mandamus to

6 enable a eolered student to enter a law sehool of the Stat

7 In IMMO v. 0.1.0., UV V.S. 494, the dissent by IOUs'

8 MaReynelds was based upon the theory that the District

9 Court should refuse to interfere by injunstion with the
10 fusetion of the munisipality to control its perks and
11 streets, and that plaintiffs had ample opportunity to
12 assert their slates through the State courts. The majeri
13 opinion thus is authority that District courts have poesy
14 to Snorter* by injuastion in loofa fetters.
15 giggle v. peoOtebaohl 874 U.S. 392, was a petition of
16 maadamus against city *Metals to aware a lieeneo to
17 condnet a poolroom, and although the petition was denied
18 the Court based it on the ground that no arbitrary
19 "rieination was proved. From the opinion it is evident
20 that the Court would not have hesitated to order the nit
21 per ease had been proved.
22 I f the Moral *Out has jurisdistion at a i, it may

23 to a elects adjudieatioa, although this say involve matters

24 of slate al law.
25 lederel P $d 14., Vol. 1,
26 p.

27 , U.S. 490
28 Al a
29 of plaintiffs set forth in their
30 of eamplaint that the titian of the
31 L on and Asseaameet in making the asses s
32 ants amen deretion and the threatened lutist of
 1 defendant in respect of carrying those assessment,

2 to feet constituted action by the stele, end if

3 out would violate the equal protection pro ►i-

4 he Fourteenth Amendment, presents without

5 question, a real end substantial controversy under the

6 Constitution of the United States, which (there being

7 involved a sum end value in mess of the juxiadielic

8 out) eenferred Jurisdiction upon the federal seurt,

9 speetive of the citizenship of the parties. This

10 so, the larisdietion of that court extended, and

11 clue on appeal extends, to the determination of all

12 ions involved in the case, including questions of

13 ate law, irrespective of the disposition that nay

14 it of the federal question, or Whether it be

15 tor/ to decide it at all, "ter Y.
16 4 U.S. 175, 101;
17 es NU U.S.
18
19
20
21 TREBX IS A GIAAR VIOLATION OF THE RI am OT PLAINTIFF AND THE

22 GLASS ow MALT or WHOM THEY SUED UNDER THE FOURITOITH ANIS

23
werr, UM BOTH THE DUE PROMS AND WU. PROTECTION GLADDER.

24 The evidence is without centradistion that children of

25 doesn 't have been a g gregated in sePeroto asked

26 house* . Such segregation was demonstrated to be based

27 upon the wasestry of the pupils, that Of bein g deseendents

28 of Nelleans. The defense contention Chit the segregation was
29 based upon other reasons was not suppertWd at the trial.
30 The evidence of the experts put on the stolid by plaintiffs i

31 uncontradieted in many particulars; their testimony amOlY

32 supports the itonelusion that it is had education end

nite
 1 P0110/ to segregate children upon the basis of Merle=
ancestry from other children in separate school houses.
3 B. The segregation as practiced by the defendants is arbitrary,

4 diseriminatory and unjust, and (nearly in violation of the

5 lreurteeath Alseuteente

6 1. toresteteur. Unite4 St %stet 323 U.S. alt. (1

7 Court stated the broad principle, at page 216,

8 It should be noted,to begin with, that all legal

9 lotions which curtail the civil rights of a

10 single racial group are iseedistolY suspect. That is
11 to say that all sueh restrictions are uneeastitu-
12 tional. It is to say that courts must subject this to
13 the most rigid scrutiny. Pressing public necessity
14 say 2oestimis ,justify the existense of mush ratite-
15 tiens racial oolsoosioa war sem.
16 Hough the Court used the words "racial ups, the/
17 ware actually speaking of pereons of Japanese Omen%
18 ince the army exclusion order was directed maly et such
19 sone, and therefore the ease involved only sash
20 sons. The strong dissent of Justice MUrphy should be
21 *4 as on the point he was discussing, seemly,
22 rimination, he was in general egreeneat with the
23 ty opinion. Although he used the words
24 anon" and "races" he was actually speakiag of
25 set bf persons or Japanese deseent as the
26 Oats exclusion by military order of sushi per-
27 ds are aPPlisable in the ease at
28 of a certain national deseent
29 • are involved herein. It page 242 he states;
30 dissent, therefore, from this legmlizatisa of
31 realms Racial dissrlelnation it any fen ami in may
32 degree has no justiflabls part whatever in oar
 1 democbatio way of life. It is unattractive in any sett/
2 but it is utterly revolting among a free people Who have
3 embraced the principles set forth in the Constitution of
4 the United States. All residents of this nation are kt
5 in some way by blood or culture to a foreign land. Yet
6 they are primarily and necessarily a part of the new and
7 distinct civilization of the United States. They must
accordingly be treated at all times as the heirs of the
9 American experiment and as entitled to all the rights
10 and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution."
11 Discrimination of any kind against any person or class of
12 persons can only be supported under the general police powe
13 and then only if the exercise of the power is reasonable ani
14 extends only to such laws, enactments, Customs, etc., that
15 are enacted in good filth for the promotion of the public
16 good. Arbitrary or irrational discrimination is plainly
17 prohibited under the cases.
18 Rawlins v. Georgia 201 W. 638, in denying relief, stated
19 the rule at page 640 thats
20 °Tbe nature of the classes excluded was not such as was
21 likely to affect the conduct of the members as Juryman,
22 or to make them act other wise than those who were drawn
23 would act. The exclusion was not the result of race or
24 class prejudice. It does not even appear that any of
25 the defendants belonged to any of the excluded clams.
26 Clarke v, 9000baoh, 274 V.S. 392, held that alien race and
27 allegiance could,bs a legitimate object of legislation as
28 to be made the basis of and permitted classification if it
29 were not irrational.
30 Truax v. Ralch. 239 U.S. 33, held that it was not a reason
31 able classification to prohibit the employs* ma
32 20% non-eitizens. The Court stated at page 4

-16-
1 But th$s admitted authority, with the broad range
2 of legislative discretion that it implies, does not go
so far as to make it possible for the State to deny to
4 lawful inhabitants, because of their race of nationality,
5 the ordinary means of earning a livelihood."
6 And at page 431
7 "The discrimination is against aliens as such in competi
8 tion with citizens in the described range of enterprises,
9 and in our opinion it clearly falls under the condemna-
10 tion of the fundamental law."
11 Reagan v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co., 154 U.S. 362, 390,
12 contains this statements
13 . • valid law may be wrongfully administered by
14 officers of this state, and so as to make such adminis-
15 tration an illegal precendent and exaction upon the
16 individual."
17 Lipson v. Geary, 204 F. 507, although denyingrelief recog-
18 nized the rule of law, at page 511, as follows;
19 • 4, 4, it is only when a state law regulating such em-
20 ployment discriminated arbitrarily against the equal
21 rights of some class of citizens of the United States,
22 or some class of persons within its jurisdiction, as,
23 for example, on account of race or color, that the civil
24 rights of such persons are invaded, and the protection
25 of the federal Constitution can be invoked to protect
26 the individual in his employment or calling."
27 ;Oak v. C+0.. 607 U.S. 496, enjoined city officials on
28 the basis that the ordinances in question were arbitrary
29 and were not based on the comfort of convenience of the
30 people in the use of the streets.
31 Marnitte v. west Virginia State Board of Education. 310,
32 U.S. 566. The opinion in this ease, part of which was

- 16 -
 1 quoted anDra, gives strong support to the protection of the
2 fundamental rights. Although Erotic. Murphy in his concur-
3 ring opinion, at page 645, was speaking of the freedom to
4 worship, his words are appropos here. A portion of his
5 statement follows;
6 Reflection has convinced me that as a judge have no
7 loftier duty or responsibility than to uphold the spirt
8 ual freedom to its fartherest reaches."
9 C. This is a proper case for a class suit. In Barnette v. west
10 Virginia State Board of Education, 319 U.S. 624, members of
11 ishovah's Wi tnesses sued for themselves and for other members
12 of said sect, and were granted injunctive relief both for
13 themselves and for their class.
14 CUmmiAg v. Heard of Education, 175 U.S. 78. Although the
15 denied relief on the ground discrimination was not proved,
16 action was a class suit by colored persons to enjoin the School
17 Board from using tax funds to operate a separate school for
18 white highschool femalep, thus the court in not putting its
19 opinion, on OAS ground upheld the suit as a class suit.
20
IIZ
21 THE CALIFORNIA LAW DOES NOT PERMIT SEGREGATION UPON
22 THE BASIS OF DESCENT FROM MEXICAN ANCESTRY OR SIAM G
23 THE SPANISH LANGUAGE.
24 all:omit School ESL Section 8003, governs what types
25 of separate schools may be established, and among those list
26 than is not mentioned separate schools for persons tope
27 Spanish gi distinguished from those who spak English, or
28 separate schools for those of Mexican descent. The Section
29 is quoted as follows;
30 4 8005. Schools for Indian ohildran, and Oaken of
31
ChiMeee, Japanese or Mongolian parentage;
32
40ablahment. The governing board of any school district
may establish separate schools for Indian children, excep
In0
- 17 -
 1 ing children of Indians who are wards of the United
2 Government and children of all other Indians who are deacon
3 of the original American Indians of the United States, and
4 for children of Chinese, Japanese, orxongolian parentage."
)
5 Under the rules of interpretation which are well recognised, t
6 omission of the mention of separate schools for persons of
7 Mexican ancestry, or for children who speak the Spanish Dingua
8 acts as a prohibition in the establishment of such schools, as
9 only those types of schools listed can be established as
10 separate schools.
11 Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius. See 23 Cal. Jur.,
12 Sec. 118, p. 740, and cases cited.
13 IV
14 UNDER THE CASE AS PRESENTED COMPLETE RELIEF CAN BM
15 GRANTED THE PLAINTIFFS AND THE CLASS ON BEHALF OF WHOM THEY
16 SUE.
17 A. Injunction was granted in the following cases:
18 BOSett* v. West Virginia State Board of Education.
19 319 U.S. 624. Flag salute ease. (Class suit)
20 Trusat .v. Reich, 239 U.S. 35. Restraint against state officer
21 Green* v. Louie 0 Interurban R,R70o. 244 U.S. 499.
22 Enjoining collection of taxes.
23 Ammo v. C.I.O., 507 U.S. 496. Enjoining municipal officers.
24 Ix Parte Ysu*g. 209 U. S. 123.
25 aseallit v. Baton Sewer Pip* Ce., 184 U.S. 540.
26 In the following casealvamong numerous others, the court
27 recognized the ri*t. to injunctive relief, although belief
28 was not granted:
29
empaing v. Board of Education, 175 U.S. 78
30
Plumy v. Fer g uson, 185, U.S. 657.
31
son v. Pearl. 204 F. 607
32
Gobitis v. Millersville School District, 310 U.S. 586. flag

In
8
 salute involving School Die riot.
Unde rarm was granted in the following inset
Missouri Ex Rel Gaines v. Canada. 508 U.S. 357, against
1
2 curators of State University.

3
4 The right to mandamus was recognised in the following

5 case, among others

6 Clara v. DeckebeCh. 274 U,3. 322.

7
Respectfully submitted,
8
a
10 RATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD,
LOS ANGELES CHAPTER
11 By CHARLES F. CHRISTOPHER
12 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
13 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BRANCH

By A. L. WIRIN
14
15
18
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 -19-