Nicholas Deb. Katzenbach, as Acting Attorney General of the United States v. Ollie McClung Sr.
Headline: Government appeal against a private individual moves forward as the Court notes probable jurisdiction, allows NAACP amicus brief, expedites briefing, and schedules oral argument for October 5, 1964.
Holding:
- Allows NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund to file an amicus brief.
- Speeds briefing and schedules oral argument for October 5, 1964.
- Court noted probable jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Summary
Background
The appeal is brought by the Acting Attorney General of the United States against Ollie McClung, Sr. The Government’s lawyers, including the Solicitor General and the Assistant Attorney General, filed for review, while counsel for McClung were Robert McD. Smith and William G. Somerville. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund moved for permission to file a brief supporting one side as an outside adviser to the Court.
Reasoning
The Court considered procedural requests about how the case should proceed. The opinion text records that the Court granted the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund leave to file an amicus brief, noted probable jurisdiction over the appeal, and granted a joint motion to speed up briefing and oral argument. As a result, the Court set the case for oral argument on Monday, October 5, 1964.
Real world impact
These actions change the timetable and participation in the case: the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund may submit its brief, the parties must follow an accelerated briefing schedule, and the case will be argued before the Court on the scheduled October date. These are procedural rulings about how and when the Court will consider the dispute; they do not decide the underlying legal issues on the merits.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?