Orange County Lawyer Table of Contents

May 2008

50th Anniversary of Law Day Celebrating the Rule of Law

Some fifty years ago, President Dwight D. Eisenhower established Law Day.  The proclamation he issued exhorted Americans, and especially those in the legal profession, to celebrate with “a day of national dedication to the principle of government under law.” 

This  year’s celebration focuses on the rule of law in our society.  William Neukom, President of the American Bar Association, in a recent message, stated that the “rule of law refers to a system in which the government is accountable under the law.” 

When I reflect upon the role of the rule of law in American life, I find that it is best exemplified by those occasions in which the rule of law is used to challenge injustice in our government.  Immediately, one thinks of cases such as Brown v. Board of Education (347 U.S. 483 (1954)) where brave clients and lawyers challenged the laws which promoted racial segregation in our nation’s schools, and brave jurists made landmark rulings. Few people know the role of Orange County in paving the way to the landmark ruling of Brown v. Board. As we celebrate Law Day this year, we should reflect on another important anniversary – the 61st anniversary of the legal decision that led to the end of racial segregation in the California school system. A decision that has its roots in Orange County.

            After months of organizing and meeting with lawyers, on March 2, 1945, six Mexican-American families, led by Gonzalo and Felicitas Mendez, joined together as representative plaintiffs in filing a complaint in the United States District Court, Central Division of the Southern District of California, entitled Mendez, et. al.  v. Westminster School District, et. al. 

The complaint sought to end the practice of assigning children of Mexican-American or Latin descent to certain schools “reserved for and attended solely and exclusively by children and persons of Mexican and Latin descent, while such other schools are maintained, attended and used exclusively by and for persons and children purportedly known as White or Anglo-Saxon children.”  Mendez v. Westminster School District of Orange County, 64 F. Supp. 544 (D.C. Cal. 1946).  David Marcus, a Los Angeles civil rights attorney, agreed to represent the families. After a lengthy trial, Judge Paul J. McCormick found in favor of the Plaintiffs holding that segregation of Mexican-American school children in several Orange County school districts was unlawful. The ruling was revolutionary in its impact, and a necessary precursor to the Brown v. Board of Education decision.

When the Defendants appealed the Mendez decision to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, represented by Thurgood Marshall, filed an amicus brief “urging that the court rule all educational segregation unconstitutional.”  In upholding Judge McCormick’s decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined that call, while also declining application of the “separate but equal doctrine” of Plessy v. Ferguson (163 U.S. 537 (1896)).  (See, Thomas A. Saenz, Mendez and the Legacy of Brown: A Latino Civil Rights Lawyer’s Assessment, in Symposium, Rekindling the Spirit of Brown v. Board of Education, 6 Afr.-Am. L. & Pol’y Rep. 194; 11 Asian L.J. 276; 15 Berkeley La Raza L.J. 67; 19 Berkeley Women’s L.J. 395; Calif. L. Rev. (2004).)  The Ninth Circuit’s ruling, upholding Mendez, was narrowly tailored to end de jure desegregation of California schools for Mexican-American students.  It took another year before Governor Earl Warren, later Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and the California legislature repealed all remaining statutes supporting segregation in California schools.  As you all know, Chief Justice Earl Warren later wrote the opinion in Brown v. Board of Education.

Cathrine M. Castaldi is a member of Irvine-based Rus, Miliband & Smith, APC, a complex business litigation and corporate insolvency firm.