ACTIVITIES OF CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION OF JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ACCORDING TO THE ANNUAL REPORT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, 1962

I. VOTING RIGHTS

During 1962 a total of 3,093 complaints were received which merited investigation and hearings; 32 cases were filed as a result of these complaints; 3 had been adjudicated at the time of the report.

Sixty-two counties were still under investigation at the time of the report, and it was estimated that 35 more cases would be filed before the end of the year. After suits have been successfully adjudicated, the Division continues surveillance of the counties involved to assure compliance with court orders. This surveillance has led to two contempt citations during fiscal 1962. Trial dates were set for 5 more cases in the fall of 1962, and it was estimated that 16 additional contempt cases would be tried before the end of fiscal 1963.

II. INTERSTATE TRANSPORT

Out

Two hundred and ninety-nine bus stations were investigated by the FBI. of 33 stations practicing segregation, 14 complied voluntarily with the Division's request for desegregation; 9 suits were brought which resulted in 7 court orders of complete relief; 10 stations were still being considered when the report was made.

Sixty-eight railroad stations voluntarily compiled with the Division's requests. Of 165 airports, all except 4 complied voluntarily. These four airports were desegregated following suits.

U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Recapitulation of complaints received during the period July 1, 1962, through May 17, 1963 (pursuant to Public Law 85-315, sec. 104 (a) (1) (2) (3))

Voting complaints filed pursuant to Public Law 85-315, sec. 104(a) (1), listed by State and category-Period covered: From the organization of the Commission through May 17, 1963

1 Sworn voting complaints are those in writing and under oath or affirmation alleging unlawful denial of the right to vote and have that vote counted.

Unsworn voting complaints are those in writing but not under oath or affirmation alleging unlawful denial of the right to vote and have that vote counted.

General voting irregularities complaints are either sworn or unsworn complaints alleging that unlawful restraint or hardship was placed upon the complainant, or that the complainant was subjected to some unlawful discrimination in the exercise of his suffrage rights.

431 voting complaints received from Mississippi since Mar. 15 of this year: 3 sworn, 28 unsworn.

BRIEF OF MORGAN v. UNITED STATES (304 U.S. 1)

Appellants, market agents, challenged the validity of an order of the Secretary of Agriculture fixing maximum rates to be charged by them at the Kansas City Stockyards pursuant to be Packers and Stockyards Act, 1921, 42 Stat. 159; 7 U.S.C. 181-229.

The appellants claim that the Secretary did not accord them a hearing which the statute requires as a prerequisite to a valid order. The Supreme Court sustained this contention.

The procedure followed by the Department of Agriculture was the following: Testimony was taken from both sides by an examiner of the Department. Oral argument was heard by the Secretary. A brief was submitted by the appellants, but none was submitted by the Government. Findings were prepared by the Department. The Secretary based his decision on these findings, ex parte conversations with Department officials and sketchy review of the record.

The Court held that in a quasi-judicial hearing, which this was, since the outcome affected appellants' property rights, a hearing which did not afford appellants the opportunity to contest the findings of the Government did not meet the requirements of law in that they were not "in accordance with the cherished judicial tradition embodying the basic concepts of fair play."

GREENE V. MCELROY (360 U.S. 474)

Petitioner, an aeronautical engineer with a private firm, lost his job after the Navy revoked his security clearance. The hearing procedures afforded petitioner did not accord him the rights of confrontation and cross-examination. The Court held that since the clearance procedure is of questionable constitutionality, it could not be adopted without explicit congressional authorization. The Court found that there was no such authorization. The Court considered the procedures to be of questionable constitutionality in that a person would be deprived of the right to follow his chosen occupation without a full hearing.

Facts

WILLNER V. COMMITTEE ON CHARACTER AND FITNESS, ETC.
May 13, 1963

Petitioner passed the New York bar examinations in 1936 and since that time, intermittently has been seeking admission to the bar. In 1938 the character and fitness committee, after several hearings, refused to certify to the Appellate Division of the New York Court of Appeals that Willner possessed the requisite character for membership in the bar. In 1943 the appellate division refused to review its 1938 opinion. Permission of the appellate division is necessary before one can reapply for admission, once admission has been denied. In 1948, the appellate division granted Willner permission to reapply and after two hearings, the character committee again refused to certify him. In 1951, Willner again applied to the appellate division which denied his application. A similar application was denied in 1954; the court of appeals refused leave to appeal, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari.

The appellate division denied Willner's final application to reapply in 1960 and the Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and then affirmed the action of the appellate division holding that Willner had not been denied due process of law (11 New York 2d 866). Willner had contended that he "was never afforded the opportunity of confronting my accusers, of having the accusers sworn and cross-examining them, and the opportunity of refuting the accusations and the accusers."

Holding

The Supreme Court, per Justice Douglas, reversed the court of appeals. He stated: "We have emphasized in recent years that procedural due process often requires confrontation and cross-examination of those whose word deprives a person of his livelihood." The Court stated that Willner was denied due process of law in that he was not allowed to confront and cross-examine the adverse witnesses whose testimony was relied on by the character committee. The Court noted that the "role of the committee is more than that of a mere investigator." Goldberg concurring (Justice Brennan and Justice Stewart).

Justice Goldberg interprets the majority opinion and the demands of due process as requiring confrontation and cross-examination somewhere in the total proceedings, but not necessarily before the character committee.

Harlan dissenting (Justice Clark).

The writ of certiorari should have been dismissed as improvidently granted.