Support the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse?

The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse is committed to making information about civil rights lawsuits public, accessible, and free. If you use our--recently revamped--website and the posted documents and information, would you consider a donation? Our small but mighty team relies principally on grant funding and donations. Can you help?

Support the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse?

The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse is committed to making information about civil rights lawsuits public, accessible, and free. If you use our--recently revamped--website and the posted documents and information, would you consider a donation? Our small but mighty team relies principally on grant funding and donations. Can you help?

Thank you!

DONATE

Case: Washington v. Lee

66-cv-02350 | U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama

Filed Date: Feb. 18, 1966

Closed Date: 1970

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On February 18, 1966, a class action lawsuit challenging racial discrimination in Alabama's correctional system was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama against Alabama's Commissioner of Corrections, Board of Corrections, and two defendant classes, defined as all Alabaman sheriffs and all wardens and jailers of city and town jails in Alabama. Five African-American inmates and one white inmate represented the plaintiff class, which purported to represent …

On February 18, 1966, a class action lawsuit challenging racial discrimination in Alabama's correctional system was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama against Alabama's Commissioner of Corrections, Board of Corrections, and two defendant classes, defined as all Alabaman sheriffs and all wardens and jailers of city and town jails in Alabama. Five African-American inmates and one white inmate represented the plaintiff class, which purported to represent the interest of incarcerated males and females even though the named plaintiffs were probably all male. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, sought declaratory and injunctive relief.

The parties agreed that Alabama law mandated the racial segregation of inmates, which the plaintiffs claimed was unconstitutional. The plaintiffs also alleged that the defendants discriminated in hiring for law enforcement and corrections jobs. On the same day that they filed the Complaint, the plaintiffs asked the court to grant a preliminary injunction to stop both the enforcement of laws mandating racial segregation for inmates and discriminatory hiring practices.

On March 21, 1966, a three-judge panel (Judges Frank M. Johnson, Jr., Richard T. Rives, and Seybourn H. Lynne) was convened to hear the constitutional issues, pursuant to the now-obsolete requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2281 et seq. On June 9, 1966, the plaintiffs issued interrogatories to the Commissioner of Corrections, Jefferson County Sheriff, and Birmingham City Jail's Warden. The file contains responses to all interrogatory requests, filed June 14-25, 1966. The various defendants filed Answers to the Complaint from June 14-16, 1966.

On November 21, 1966, the court (Judge Johnson) identified procedural and substantive issues to be briefed and addressed during the trial. Specifically, the defendants challenged the plaintiffs' standing to sustain an action against the Birmingham City Jail, claiming that none of the named plaintiffs were either still confined at or had shown a likelihood of future detention at the jail.

On December 12, 1966, the court (Judge Johnson) held that the plaintiffs should not be required to show the likelihood of being detained at the Birmingham City Jail, reasoning that such a requirement might encourage rather than deter criminal activity. Washington v. Lee, 263 F. Supp. 327 (M.D. Ala. 1966). Ruling on the merits of the case, the court held that the Alabama law mandating racial segregation in prisons violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and ordered the immediate desegregation of state and local penal institutes. The court implemented a two-pronged plan to ensure compliance. First, the counties were required to report the racial composition of inmates and on efforts to desegregate the population every quarter. Second, the Commissioner of Corrections was required to inspect all local jails every three months.

Pending the defendants' appeal to the United States Supreme Court, the district court stayed its judgment on February 15, 1967. The file contains several documents regarding the appellate process, including the Supreme Court's finding of probable jurisdiction. Lee v. Washington, 38 U.S. 928 (1967). On March 11, 1968, the Supreme Court (Justice Hugo L. Black) affirmed, but held that racial segregation could be used by corrections in good faith and when necessary to promote prison security, discipline, and order. Lee v. Washington, 390 U.S. 333 (1968). Following the Supreme Court's opinion, the three-judge panel was dissolved on January 16, 1969. On March 13, 1970, the court closed the case and reduced the frequency of status reports to once a year.

On October 13, 1970, the plaintiffs asked the court to find the State in contempt. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that in 1969, Holman Prison Unit was re-segregated. On April 24, 1973, the defendants moved the court to modify the frequency of mandatory jail and prison monitoring, which the State claimed was inefficient because jails in small communities were often empty when inspected. The plaintiffs were concerned that such a change would be detrimental to desegregation efforts because enforcement would be left in the hands of the inmates themselves.

On August 13, 1975, the plaintiffs asked the court to hold the Commissioner of Corrections in contempt for a second time. The plaintiffs alleged that the Commissioner had not taken the necessary steps to desegregate the State's correctional system, including its educational and vocational programs. On September 12, 1975, the court (Judge Johnson) dismissed the plaintiff's motion for contempt, concluding that the shortage of operating funds made racial segregation temporarily necessary to ensure prison security. The court, however, impressed upon the parties the importance of properly funding corrections programs instead of relying on segregation to make up for deficits.

We have no additional information on this lawsuit.

Summary Authors

Elizabeth Chilcoat (6/28/2006)

Related Cases

Beard v. Lee, Southern District of Alabama (1966)

People


Judge(s)

Black, Hugo Lafayette (District of Columbia)

Harlan [elder], John Marshall (District of Columbia)

Johnson, Frank Minis Jr. (Alabama)

Lynne, Seybourn Harris (Alabama)

Rives, Richard Taylor (Alabama)

Stewart, Potter (District of Columbia)

Tuttle, Elbert Parr (Georgia)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Billingsley, Orzell Jr. (Alabama)

Bradley, Neil T. (Georgia)

Cooper, Algernon [A.J.] Johnson Jr. (Alabama)

Judge(s)

Black, Hugo Lafayette (District of Columbia)

Harlan [elder], John Marshall (District of Columbia)

Johnson, Frank Minis Jr. (Alabama)

Lynne, Seybourn Harris (Alabama)

Rives, Richard Taylor (Alabama)

Stewart, Potter (District of Columbia)

Tuttle, Elbert Parr (Georgia)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Billingsley, Orzell Jr. (Alabama)

Bradley, Neil T. (Georgia)

Cooper, Algernon [A.J.] Johnson Jr. (Alabama)

Crittenden, Judith (Alabama)

Dawson, William Monroe Jr. (Alabama)

Drake, Jack (Alabama)

McDonald, Moffatt Laughlin (Georgia)

Morgan, Charles Jr. (Georgia)

Still, Edward (Alabama)

Wulf, Melvin L. (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Baxley, William J. (Alabama)

Breckenridge, J. M. (Alabama)

Dominick, Frank (Alabama)

Fletcher, Walter (Alabama)

Flowers, Richmond M. (Alabama)

Gallion, MacDonald (Alabama)

Hare, Nicholas S. (Alabama)

Madison, Gordon (Alabama)

McBee, Earl (Alabama)

Newman, Larry R. (Alabama)

Sorrells, Thomas W. (Alabama)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Contract for Service in a Nonfederal Institution

No Court

Jan. 27, 1966

Jan. 27, 1966

Other

67-02350

Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Feb. 18, 1966

Feb. 18, 1966

Pleading / Motion / Brief

67-02350

Complaint

Feb. 18, 1966

Feb. 18, 1966

Complaint

67-02350

Designation of Three-Judge Panel

March 22, 1966

March 22, 1966

Order/Opinion

67-02350

Interrogatories to Robert K. Austin, Warden of the City Jail of Birmingham, Alabama

June 9, 1966

June 9, 1966

Notice Letter

67-02350

Interrogatories to Frank Lee, Commissioner of Corrections of Alabama

June 9, 1966

June 9, 1966

Notice Letter

67-02350

Interrogatories to A. Melvin Bailey, Sheriff of Jefferson County, Alabama

June 9, 1966

June 9, 1966

Notice Letter

67-02350

Answer of Defendant Frank Lee, as Commissioner of Corretions of Alabama; and Other Defendants, as Members of the Board of Corrections of Alabama

June 14, 1966

June 14, 1966

Pleading / Motion / Brief

67-02350

Answer of Defendant Frank Lee to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories

June 14, 1966

June 14, 1966

Pleading / Motion / Brief

67-02350

Answer of Robert K. Austin, as Warden, to Complaint

June 17, 1966

June 17, 1966

Pleading / Motion / Brief

Resources

Docket

Last updated Dec. 5, 2022, 3:17 a.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: Alabama

Case Type(s):

Prison Conditions

Special Collection(s):

Featured Historical Cases

Key Dates

Filing Date: Feb. 18, 1966

Closing Date: 1970

Case Ongoing: No reason to think so

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Incarcerated males and females in Alabama

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Alabama Prison System (Jefferson), State

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

42 U.S.C. § 1981

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Equal Protection

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Availably Documents:

Complaint (any)

Any published opinion

U.S. Supreme Court merits opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Mixed

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 1966 - 0

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief request withdrawn/mooted

Issues

General:

Racial segregation

Discrimination-basis:

Race discrimination

Affected Gender:

Female

Male

Type of Facility:

Government-run