sign in sign up
<<
Home , Rufus Choate, Samuel Hoar

Boston College Law School Digital Commons @ College Law School

Boston College Law School Faculty Papers

6-1-2020

The Boston ’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law: The First Fifty Years

Mark S. Brodin Boston College Law School, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/lsfp

Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Law and Economics Commons, Law and Race Commons, and the Legal History Commons

Recommended Citation Mark S. Brodin. "The Boston Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law: The First Fifty Years." Law Review 101, no.3 (2020): 43-49.

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law School Faculty Papers by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Boston Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law: The First Fifty Years By Mark S. Brodin

Introduction Mark S. Brodin is a professor of Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. thought that a person “should share law, a Michael and Helen Lee Dis- the passion and action of his time at peril of being judged not to tinguished Scholar, and a former have lived.”1 As a thrice-wounded veteran of the Civil War, infuen- associate dean for academic afairs tial legal philosopher, chief justice of the Supreme Judicial Court, at Boston College Law School. and later an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United Brodin clerked for States, Holmes certainly practiced what he preached.2 He was not District Judge Joseph L. Tauro alone. Massachusetts lawyers have a long tradition of pro bono from 1972 to 1974, and was a staf public service and commitment to the greater good of our society. attorney with the Lawyers’ Com- set an early example, risking his reputation and his mittee for Civil Rights Under Law future while answering one of the highest calls of the ’s duty, of the Boston Bar Association from defending the unpopular client, when he defended British soldiers 3 1974 to 1980. He is the author in the Boston Massacre trials. Adams’ primary authorship of the of numerous law review articles, Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 was infuential in formulating and co-author of Handbook of Massachusetts Evidence (with the Constitution of the United States, and creating an independent Michael Avery), Criminal Procedure: Te Constitution and the judiciary.4 famously used his own eloquence to help (with Robert M. Bloom), and preserve our independent judiciary.5 and others Police Civil Procedure: Doctrine, actively worked against and racial injustice.6 Practice and Context (with Stephen Subrin, Martha Minow, brought his immense talents to bear in fghting for economic jus- Tom Main and Alexandra Lahav). Brodin is a consultant to the tice for our citizens and against large corporate monopolies.7 Felix six-volume Weinstein’s Federal Evidence treatise. His William P. Frankfurter, then a professor, was a leader of Homans Jr.: A Life in Court traces the life and times of the iconic the international outcry against the injustice of Massachusetts’ ex- criminal defense and civil liberties lawyer. 8 ecution of Italian immigrants in the Sacco-Vanzetti case. time, defant southern governors were blocking the entry of black So, it is no surprise that John F. Kennedy, a president steeped in students to state universities, sherifs were brutally putting down Massachusetts history, reached out to the practicing bar to involve it nonviolent protests with howling police dogs and frehoses, black in what he saw as a moral and legal crisis “as old as the scriptures and churches were being bombed, and Freedom Riders were sufering 9 as clear as the American constitution.” In 1963, only months before pitiless beatings. In response to President Kennedy’s call to action, his assassination, President Kennedy convened a meeting of 244 of the national Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights was formed later the nation’s leading lawyers at the White House, seeking their active that same year with the aim of activating the pro bono resources of 10 participation in the protection of civil rights under the law. At the the private bar in the struggle for racial equality and justice.11

1. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Memorial Day Speech (May 30, 1884) 6. See, e.g., United States v. Libellant and Claimants of Te Schooner Amis- (transcript available at https://speakola.com/ideas/oliver-wendell-holmes- tad, 40 U.S. 518 (1841) (Adams successfully argued cause of slaves who had memorial-day-speech-1884. mutinied on Spanish ship bound for Cuba). 2. See generally Liva Baker, The Justice from Beacon Hill (Harper Col- 7. Melvin I. Urofsky, Louis D. Brandeis: A Life (Pantheon, 2009). lins, 1991). 8. Felix Frankfurter, Te Case of Sacco and Vanzetti, The Atlantic (March 3. Hiller B. Zobel, The Boston Massacre (Norton, 1970); David Mc- 1927). Cullough, John Adams 65-68, 77, 123, 630 (Simon & Schuster, 2001). 9. President John F. Kennedy, Report to the American People on Civil Rights 4. See Chief Justice Edward Hennessey, John Adams and the Massachusetts (June 11, 1963). Constitution, in The Hennessey Papers 94-97 (MCLE Inc. 2002). 10. Mark S. Brodin, A History of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights under 5. See 2 Mass. L. Q. 220 (1917) (reprinting Choate’s speech to the 1853 Con- Law of the Boston Bar Association, 32 Boston Bar Journal 9 (1988). stitutional Convention on the occasion of the dedication of the statue in his 11. Id. honor in what is now the John Adams Courthouse).

Te Boston Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law: Te First Fifty Years / 43 The Founding of the Boston Lawyers’ Committee for Racial and Economic Disparities in the Criminal Justice Civil Rights Under Law System A distinguished group of Boston lawyers12 answered the call Te Boston LCCR initially focused on glaring racial and eco- when they created the frst local afliate of the national Lawyers’ nomic disparities in the criminal justice system. Tese were doc- Committee for Civil Rights in 1968, with funding from the Ford umented in the Committee’s publication of Te Quality of Justice Foundation and the city’s major law frms. In 1973, the Boston af- in the Lower Criminal Courts of Metropolitan Boston (the “Orange fliate secured the sponsorship of the Boston Bar Association (BBA), Book”),16 a groundbreaking empirical study from extensive court- and became the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights of the Boston watching and data compilation prepared under the leadership of Bar Association (LCCR, Lawyers’ Committee or Committee). BBA Stephen Bing and S. Stephen Rosenfeld. Its recommendations be- leaders Carl Sapers and John Perkins declared: came the blueprint for legal reform in Massachusetts in the decades If the poor and the underrepresented are to have equal that followed, including: elimination of the outdated and problem- justice, it is not enough that we leave their advocacy atic trial de novo system, which invested unreviewable discretion to young and inexperienced counsel, however dedi- in local district court judges; elimination of private bail bondsmen; cated such counsel may be. It is not enough that the adoption of uniform procedural rules; and expansion of the public organized bar contribute from time to time to funding defender system. such advocacy programs. Te Boston Bar Association School Desegregation has accepted full responsibility for the development of a public interest law ofce which will be an integrated Te Boston LCCR also addressed segregation in the Boston Pub- lic Schools (BPS). Te BPS’ system for school assignment was frst part of the Bar itself and will be supported profession- 17 ally and, to a large extent, fnancially by the lawyers of challenged (unsuccessfully) in 1849 in Roberts v. City of Boston, a this city. We know of no better way to make clear our case brought on behalf of a black girl forced to walk a great distance commitment to the administration of justice for all the to an under-resourced, all-black common school while passing white citizens of this community.13 schools in her own neighborhood. Pressure to desegregate Boston’s schools rose to a fever pitch in the 1960s, but after eforts at reform Te founding year of the Boston LCCR was one of the most were met with resistance, aggrieved parties turned to the courts. tumultuous and consequential in the history of the American Re- In 1972, the Lawyers’ Committee sued the Boston School Com- public. In February 1968, the Kerner Commission (the National mittee in the United States District Court for the District of Mas- Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders) issued its report conclud- sachusetts.18 Te case exposed the School Committee’s policies of ing famously that the nation was fast becoming two Americas — deliberately and systematically assigning students and teachers on 14 “one black, one white — separate and unequal.” Te struggle for the basis of race, and locating new schools with the obvious purpose civil rights and equal justice was, the report documented, in no way of maintaining segregation. In a courageous ruling later afrmed by 15 limited to the South. President Kennedy’s vision of enlisting a mo- the First Circuit, Judge W. Arthur Garrity determined that Boston bilized private bar to join the fght for equal justice had come home was running a dual system, one for white children and another, far to Massachusetts, and there was plenty of work to be done here, as inferior, for black children.19 Te Morgan v. Hennigan decision was even a brief review of the Boston Committee’s activities over the a defning moment in the movement to make the mandate of Brown past 50 years amply demonstrates. v. Board of Education20 a reality in the North as well as the South.

12. Te original steering committee included Richard L. Banks, G. d’Andelot 16. Stephen Bing and S. Stephen Rosenfeld, The Quality of Justice: In the Belin, Frederick L. Brown, Teodore Chase, Livingston Hall, , Lower Criminal Courts of Metropolitan Boston, The Lawyers’ Com- Paul J. Liacos, Hans F. Loeser, William F. Looney Jr., Frank I. Michelman, mittee for Civil Rights Under Law (1970). David Nelson and James St. Clair. 17. Roberts v. City of Boston, 59 Mass. 198 (1849). 13. Mark S. Brodin, A History of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights un- 18. Morgan v. Hennigan, 379 F. Supp. 410 (D. Mass. 1974), af’d sub nom., der Law of the Boston Bar Association, 32 Boston Bar Journal 9, 10 (1988). Morgan v. Kerrigan, 509 F.2d 580 (1st Cir. 1974), cert. denied, Kerrigan v. Mor- BBA presidents, including Jack Curtin, Gene Dahmen, Rudolph Pierce, Sandra gan, 421 U.S. 963 (1975) and White v. Morgan, 421 U.S. 963 (1975). Nathaniel Lynch, Margaret Marshall and Joan Lukey, provided vital economic and moral Jones, Tomas M. Simmons, J. Harold Flannery, Eric E. Van Loon and Robert support during these early years. Pressman of Foley, Hoag & Eliot and Roger I. Abrams and John Leubsdorf of 14. Nat’l Advisory Comm’n on Civil Disorders, Report of the Nation- the Harvard Center for Law and Education served as counsel for the plaintif. al Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (1968). 19. Id. at 480-82. 15. Id. 20. Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

44 / Massachusetts Law Review Over the years, the Committee has carried on its tradition of to such cases. Te protocols became a national model for what is defending equal access to education. Tis has included successful now known as community policing. litigation in Holyoke, Lowell, Cambridge, Northampton, Amherst To further buttress these enforcement eforts, the LCCR and and other districts to enforce bilingual teaching and desegregation other groups encouraged Attorney General Francis Bellotti, and his requirements.21 Te LCCR also has tackled the difcult issue of re- Civil Rights Division head L. Scott Harshbarger, to propose the source disparities. For example, in McDufy v. Secretary of Execu- Massachusetts Civil Rights Act (MCRA).26 Ultimately enacted in tive Ofce of Education,22 the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) struck 1979, the law signifcantly expanded the protections available under down Massachusetts’ system of school fnancing that relied on local the parallel federal anti-discrimination law. Tereafter, in 1982, the property taxes, and thus resulted in gross diferences between poor LCCR established its Project to Combat Racial Violence designed and wealthy districts. Committee lawyers fled amicus briefs in the to advance the MCRA’s commitment to provide legal representation United States Supreme Court in Grutter v. Bollinger23 in support of and support in both civil and criminal matters to targets of racial afrmative action, and the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in violence. defense of Lynn’s voluntary school desegregation plan.24 Te LCCR Te LCCR also tackled the difcult issue, much at the center also has successfully sued to require districts to fund residential of public debate in the past few years, of disparate police violence placements for students with special needs. All of these cases have against minorities. Since its inception, the Committee has repre- achieved favorable results for equal educational opportunities. sented victims of police abuse. For example, in 2018, the Commit- tee fled a federal complaint on behalf of the mother of a black man Battling Racial Violence with no criminal record or history of violence who was shot and When Judge Garrity issued his remedial order requiring the bus- killed by a Boston police ofcer in the doorway of the family apart- ing of school children to achieve racial balance, violent resistance ment.27 exploded. Treats against Judge Garrity led to the United States Marshals Service providing him with around-the-clock protection, Housing Discrimination and black school children in Boston had to be escorted to school by Te LCCR’s reach has extended beyond the most direct conse- tactical police ofcers in riot gear. Te ugly vitriol was poignantly quences of racial discrimination to its root causes. In many respects, captured in Stanley Forman’s Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph residential segregation is the foundational ill from which much of of Ted Landsmark, a young black professional, speared in the face the inequality in American society fows.28 Accordingly, Boston’s with an American fag wielded by anti-busing protestors in front LCCR, from its inception, has provided leadership in combating of City Hall.25 Similar racial confrontations erupted at schools and discrimination in housing. For example, it ofered representation elsewhere. to minority families seeking to integrate longtime white enclaves, In response to such widespread violence, the Lawyers’ Commit- litigating individual and class actions on their behalf against the tee joined with other organizations in requesting that the Boston Boston, East Boston, Somerville and Fall River housing authorities, Police Department create a Community Disorders Unit (CDU). as well as private landlords and realtors.29 In 1996, the Committee Despite hundreds of racially motivated crimes in the mid-to-late fled suit on behalf of tenants of color charging the Boston Housing 1970s, including multiple fatal attacks, the department had often Authority with a failure to address racial violence over a period of been reluctant to investigate these incidents. Te CDU, under com- decades.30 Te case resulted in a $1.5 million settlement, and the mander (later police commissioner) Francis “Mickey” Roache, was adoption of meaningful policies to protect minorities, including a credited with ushering in a long-overdue change in police response “zero-tolerance policy” for racial harassment.

21. See, e.g., Hispanic Parents Advisory Council v. City of Holyoke, Civ. Ac- the victim with a knife (a matter hotly disputed by his mother). Te lawsuit tion No. 80-0172 (D. Mass. 1980); Hispanic Parents Advisory Council v. Kou- challenges the practice of requiring police to accompany EMTs on mental dis- loheras, Civ. Action No. 87-1968 (D. Mass. 1987) (school desegregation and tress calls, as well as the lack of adequate training of ofcers in this regard. A bilingual education case that resulted in a favorable settlement). Boston Globe investigation revealed that of the 65 persons fatally shot by police 22. McDufy v. Sec’y of Exec. Ofce of Educ., 415 Mass. 545 (1993). in Massachusetts in recent years, nearly half were suicidal or showed clear signs of mental illness. Yet only one in fve police ofcers has received training to deal 23. Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003). with such situations — a tragic but not atypical story across the country. 24. Comfort v. Lynn Sch. Comm., 418 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2005). 28. Richard Rothstein, The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of 25. Jef Robbins, Trump’s rhetoric soiling ‘Old Glory’ anew, Boston Herald How Our Government Segregated America (2017). (July 23, 2019, 12:43 AM), https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/07/23/ 29. NAACP v. Bos. Housing Authority, 723 F. Supp. 1554 (D. Mass. 1989); trumps-rhetoric-soiling-old-glory-anew/. Mak v. Fall River Housing Authority, Civ. Action No. 95-11796 (D. Mass. 26. Mass. Gen. Laws c. 12, § 11I (2020). 1995); see, e.g., Barrett and Graham v. Realty World/Danca Realty, 17 Mass. 27. Coleman v. City of Boston, Civ. Action No. 18-10646 (D. Mass. 2018). Discrim. Law Rptr. 1665 (1995) (successful housing discrimination case Te plaintif had called 911 to seek medical assistance for her mentally dis- awarding $60,000 in emotional distress damages); Windjammer Properties v. abled son, but a police ofcer dispatched with the emergency medical techni- MCAD, Civ. Action No. 02-00099 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2002). cians (EMT) shot him twice in the abdomen, claiming he was threatened by 30. Doe v. City of Boston, Civ. Action No. 96-12540 (D. Mass. 1996).

Te Boston Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law: Te First Fifty Years / 45 Similarly, in 1978, the LCCR challenged the persistent failure a bona fde occupational qualifcation for racially discriminatory to expend federal housing funds in a non-discriminatory manner.31 hiring. Te SJC cited another court’s observation that it would be Te case was settled a decade later (under the threat of the cutof “totally anomalous” to allow the very prejudices anti-discrimination of at least $75 million in federal aid) with a historic decree deseg- laws are directed against to excuse discriminatory practices by an regating Boston’s housing projects after many years of explicitly employer.39 race-based assignment policies. Now placements would be made randomly from a citywide list, and minority families that were vic- Affirmative Action tims of discriminatory past practices were given frst preference. Te LCCR has consistently challenged discriminatory police Extending beyond Boston proper, the LCCR oversaw the establish- hiring and promotional practices that deprive qualifed minorities ment of a fair housing panel in the mid-1970s to provide individual of employment opportunities, and their communities of diverse rep- representation to families experiencing housing discrimination in resentation among the police that patrol their streets. Litigation over surrounding cities and towns. Several successful federal suits were the years has targeted the Boston, Cambridge, Salem and Barnstable brought, including two against large real estate brokerage compa- police departments on behalf of black and Latino entry-level ap- nies in Belmont and Everett.32 plicants, as well as ofcers seeking promotion, resulting in the frst nonwhite sergeants in each of these departments.40 Te Lawyers’ Employment Discrimination Committee also took over monitoring the consent decrees in the Te Committee also has provided leadership in challenging dis- pioneering Castro v. Beecher class action that successfully challenged crimination in the workplace. For example, DeGrace v. Rumsfeld the discriminatory state civil service exam.41 Te consent decrees exposed the dark underbelly of racial hostility at the United States mandate minority hiring preferences until each police (and, as a re- Naval Air Station in South Weymouth (NASSW).33 A mere 12 sult of later litigation, each fre) department reaches demographic miles from Boston, and with a civilian workforce in the hundreds, parity with its community.42 In 1983, the Lawyers’ Committee NASSW employed only a tiny handful of minority workers, includ- successfully defended these gains against a reverse discrimination ing the named plaintif, Bobby DeGrace, the lone black frefghter challenge to the protection of incumbent minorities vulnerable to in a 50-person unit.34 DeGrace was subjected to persistent harass- last-hired-frst-fred layofs.43 ment, including death threats, from his fellow frefghters.35 Bos- Te LCCR also participated in a 2006 case against the city of ton’s LCCR brought suit in 1976, charging naval authorities with Lynn challenging discriminatory police and frefghter civil service ignoring and condoning discriminatory and abusive misconduct, exams that led to a settlement of back pay and jobs to 66 minor- and ultimately secured a federal court decision that the NASSW ity candidates.44 In 2014, the LCCR won a signifcant victory in was “infected with pervasive racism” that was “obvious to the su- the First Circuit Court of Appeals when the court ruled that the pervisory personnel on the base”; and the court ordered appropriate plaintifs who challenged the Boston Police Department’s use of a remedies.36 Te case has become a cornerstone in the development drug test had established a prima facie case of a racially disparate of federal anti-harassment law in the workplace. impact under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.45 A 2016 action com- In Sarni Original Dry Cleaners v. Cooke, the LCCR sued on be- pelled the Boston Police Department to release records concerning half of a black truck driver whose daily route took him to South the racial impact of its employment practices.46 LCCR’s actions are Boston in the mid-1970s.37 Te LCCR argued that his race, and not limited to court flings; along with other civil rights groups, the animus it occasioned in the white enclave, was the reason for it sponsored a 2017 community forum on police and fre diversity his termination from the largest dry-cleaning company in Boston.38 at the Dorchester headquarters of the Massachusetts Association of Te fnal decision by the SJC was a widely cited civil rights vic- Minority Law Enforcement Ofcers Inc., which spurred further ef- tory that rejected the argument that risk of racial violence by third forts toward equal employment opportunity. parties could justify adverse action against an employee or provide

31. NAACP v. Cisneros, Civ. Action No. 78-00850 (D. Mass. 1978). 40. See, e.g., Mass. Ass’n. of Afro-American Police, Inc. v. Bos. Police Depart- 32. Tese often resulted in unpublished dispositions by preliminary injunction ment, Civ. Action No. 78-529 (D. Mass. 1978) (resulted in consent decree); or settlement. Brown v. City of Salem, 1986 WL 11750 (D. Mass. 1986). 33. De Grace v. Rumsfeld, 614 F.2d 796 (1st Cir. 1980). 41. Castro v. Beecher, 459 F.2d 725 (1st Cir. 1972). 34. Id. at 799-800. 42. Id. at 729. 35. Id. 43. Mass. Ass’n. of Afro-American Police Inc. v. Bos. Police Department, 780 36. Id. F.2d 5 (1st Cir. 1985). B 37. Sarni Original Dry Cleaners, Inc. v. Cooke, 388 Mass. 611 (1983). 44. radley v. City of Lynn, 443 F. Supp. 2d 145 (D. Mass. 2006). 45. Jones v. City of Boston, 752 F.3d 38 (1st Cir. 2014). 38. Id. at 612. 46. J 39. Id. at 617. ones v. City of Boston, 845 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 2016).

46 / Massachusetts Law Review Civil Rights Act Enforcement representation, and again opening opportunities for minority can- 52 Since 1968, the Lawyers’ Committee has been a relentless en- didates. In 2001, the LCCR obtained a federal court injunction to forcer of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids the prevent the city of Lawrence from implementing a voter identifca- 53 disbursement of federal funds to any program or activity engaging tion requirement that would have discouraged Latino voting. In in illegal discrimination. Funds fowing through the Department of 2002, the Lawyers’ Committee fled an amicus brief with the SJC to 54 Housing and Urban Development, Revenue Sharing, Law Enforce- protect several majority black state House districts. ment Assistance Administration, Department of Commerce, and Setting an Example Community Development Block Grants have all been subjects of In the Committee’s early years, a small professional staf, located LCCR litigation.47 A preliminary injunction stalled the construc- in a suite of ofces in Park Square, would prepare projects and cases, tion of a new police station in Barnstable until the resolution of an and then enlist a local law frm’s pro bono involvement. Over the LCCR case challenging promotion practices. A victory in a class years, the Committee has spawned and supported an impressive ar- action against the Boston Redevelopment Authority implemented ray of afliated entities with cognate social justice missions. In the the citizen participation requirements connected to the massive beginning, it housed the Urban Legal Laboratory of Boston Col- Fenway Urban Renewal Project, giving community groups an im- lege Law School, which assigned a faculty member and full-time portant voice in its direction. Other litigation has redirected Seaport student interns to the work of the Committee, in an early collabora- Development linkage payments from South Boston to more diverse tion between the bar and the law schools on clinical education. Te neighborhoods.48 Te Lawyers’ Committee also submitted an am- Committee was instrumental in establishing the Volunteer Lawyers icus brief defending a public housing tenants’ union sued by a major Project. It also has spun of the Fair Housing Project of Greater Boston landlord claiming that such concerted action constituted an Boston and the Prisoners’ Rights Project (now Massachusetts Cor- illegal conspiracy to deprive him of his property.49 rectional Legal Services). Voting Rights In 2001, the LCCR embarked on a signifcant transition, ex- Recognizing the vital importance of protecting voting rights, the panding its mandate to include the Economic Justice Project, and Lawyers’ Committee fled an amicus brief in an early challenge to later changing its name to the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Boston’s at-large scheme for selecting city councilors, which efec- and Economic Justice (LCCREJ). Harking back to the Kerner tively disenfranchised minority communities.50 Tough unsuccess- Commission’s warning of two separate and unequal Americas, this ful, the case prompted legislative changes, and in 1983 the Com- change refected the fact that the civil rights struggle always has mittee prevailed in an action challenging the resulting redistricting been intimately tied to the stark reality of economic inequality. Te plan.51 Tis decision enforced the rule of “one-person, one vote” Economic Justice Project annually connects more than 250 entre- and led to increased racial diversity on the Boston City Council. preneurs with free legal and business support through initiatives 55 In another voting rights case, a federal district court invalidated such as BizGrow, a small business accelerator. the 1985 redistricting plan for the state House of Representatives, In its corporate documents, the LCCR expands on the ambitious fnding “extreme, pervasive and substantial deviations” from fair goals for bar activation set by President Kennedy in 1963:

47. See, e.g., N.A.A.C.P. v. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, 817 52. Black Political Task Force v. Connolly, 679 F. Supp. 109, 130 (D. Mass. F.2d 149 (1st Cir. 1987) (federal housing funds). 1988). 48. S. Bos. Betterment Trust Corp. v. Bos. Redevelopment Auth., 438 Mass. 53. Morris v. City of Lawrence, Civ. Action No. 01-11889 (D. Mass. 2001). 57 (2002) (Committee fled an amicus brief in case). 54. Mayor of Cambridge v. Sec’y of the Commonwealth, 436 Mass. 476 49. Many of these matters were resolved with grants of preliminary injunctions (2002). and so published opinions are not available. 55. Saphia Suarez, Lawyers for Civil Rights hosts 3rd annual small business 50. Black Voters v. McDonough, 421 F. Supp. 165 (D. Mass. 1976), af’d, 565 event, The Bay State Banner (July 24, 2019), https://www.baystatebanner. F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1977). com/2019/07/24/lawyers-for-civil-rights-hosts-3rd-annual-small-business- 51. Latino Political Action Comm., Inc. v. City of Boston, 568 F. Supp. 1012 event/. (D. Mass. 1983).

Te Boston Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law: Te First Fifty Years / 47 Specifcally, the purposes of the Corporation are to imposed background check policy that dredged up outdated minor provide legal representation to individuals who are vic- ofenses.59 Te Committee’s intervention in a case involving charter tims of discrimination, harassment or violence based school enrollment caps has helped preserve vital resources for tradi- upon race or national origin or to assist such individu- tional public schools.60 als in obtaining adequate legal representation; to de- Troughout its history, the Boston Lawyers’ Committee has velop legal strategies to address racial violence, hous- steadily continued to expand its mission, engaging in litigation and ing and employment discrimination and economic advocacy in the areas of immigrants’ rights, LGBT equality, racially development activities afecting communities of color disparate discipline in public schools, environmental justice, and in a systematic and comprehensive manner; to increase economic opportunities for low-wage workers and minority entre- public understanding and awareness of civil rights and preneurs. Always at the cutting edge of civil rights protection, the the judicial and legal processes involved in civil rights LCCR has recently fled suits against the Trump administration controversies; to gather and transmit to the appropri- challenging the targeting of Chelsea and other “sanctuary cities” ate governmental bodies and to the bar pertinent facts for termination of federal funds;61 seeking to prevent Immigration bearing upon civil rights conditions in the area served and Customs Enforcement ofcers from arresting immigrants when by the Corporation; to encourage and assist local citi- they appear in courthouses on unrelated matters (which, the suit al- zens to solve civil rights problems arising in their own leges, puts “access to justice in the Commonwealth under siege”);62 communities….56 and trying to save the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) humani- tarian program for Salvadoran, Haitian and Honduran immigrants The Path Ahead following natural disasters in those countries.63 In another recent Te Boston ofce has grown to include a litigation director, edu- immigration case, the Lawyers’ Committee joined forces with cation project director, economic justice project director, health dis- WilmerHale to sue federal ofcials on behalf of a mother forcibly parities director, two staf attorneys, a paralegal, and several fellows separated from her 9-year-old child at the southern border as part of 64 and interns. Under its energetic executive director, Iván Espinoza- the administration’s harsh asylum policy. Madrigal, the newly rebranded Lawyers for Civil Rights has contin- Conclusion ued past causes and thrown itself into the new challenges of our day surrounding immigration policies. From his experience in the Civil War, Oliver Wendell Holmes Recent suits have been fled against a prominent national steak- Jr. learned at the outset that “life is a profound and passionate thing house chain to protect Latina workers from pervasive sex harass- …. But, above all, we have learned that ... the one and only success 57 which it is [ours] to command is to bring to [our] work a mighty ment; against Boston Latin School for failure to address racial 65 harassment of students;58 and against Amazon on behalf of minor- heart.” Holmes believed fervently that no profession had higher ity drivers who were summarily terminated pursuant to a newly standards than lawyers:

56. Articles of Organization at http://www.sec.state.ma.us/cor/coridx.htm. 59. Andrews v. Amazon.com Inc., Civ. Action No. 19-11182 (D. Mass. 2019). 57. Romero v. McCormick & Schmidt Restaurant Corp., Civ. Action No. 18- 60. Doe No. 1 v. Sec’y of Educ., 479 Mass. 375 (2018). 10324 (D. Mass. 2019). 61. City of Chelsea v. Trump, Civ. Action No. 17-10214 (D. Mass. 2017). 58. U.S. Attorney Ortiz Concludes Investigation into Civil Rights Allegations 62. Ryan v. United States Immigration and Customs Enf’t, 382 F. Supp. 3d at Boston Latin School, U.S. Dept. of Justice (Sept. 26, 2016) https://www. 142 (D. Mass. 2019). justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/us-attorney-ortiz-concludes-investigation-civil- 63. Centro Presente v. United States Dep’t. of Homeland Sec., 332 F. Supp. 3d see Federal rights-allegations-boston-latin-school; Milton J. Valencia et al., 393 (D. Mass. 2018). probe fnds discrimination at Boston Latin, The Boston Globe (Sept. 26, 2016, 4:10 PM), https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/09/26/federal- 64. W.R. v. Sessions, Civ. Action No. 18-11380 (D. Mass. 2018). probe-fnds-harassment-discrimination-boston-latin-school-orders-reforms/ 65. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Memorial Day Address (May 30, 1884) re- FgjoGiZVzF56iIYfIKK3PL/story.html. printed in Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Speeches 1, 11 (1934).

48 / Massachusetts Law Review And what a profession it is! .... Every calling is great Massachusetts has benefted greatly from their eforts. Te author is when greatly pursued. But what other gives such scope proud to have participated in the journey. to realize the spontaneous energy of one’s soul? In what President Kennedy’s vision of an activated private bar deeply other does one plunge so deep in the stream of life – so engaged in the struggle for civil rights and equal justice is as cru- share its passions, its battles, its despair, its triumphs, cial as ever. Te Lawyers’ Comittee will continue to work for the both as witness and actor?66 fulfllment of that prophetic vision in the years to come. Te long Since 1968, the Boston Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, tradition of Massachusetts lawyers working to protect liberty and its dedicated and talented attorneys, and the many committed law- freedom, provide pro bono public service, and strive for the greater yers and law frms who have contributed their skills to its causes, good of our society bodes well for continued success. have been fully immersed in the passions and actions of their times.

66. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Te Law (February 5, 1885) reprinted in 1 Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Speeches 16-17 (1934).

Te Boston Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law: Te First Fifty Years / 49