|
Legal Strategies Commissions
******************************************************************************************************************************************************* N'COBRA's Legal Strategies Commission was formed in 1993 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. It's mission is to develop legal strategies to advance the movement for reparations. Initially, the Legal Strategies Commission included legislative work as well as litigation. Under the Commission's leadership, numerous legislative bodies and civic and legal organizations passed resolutions in support of reparations for African Descendants in the United States and endorsing H.R. 40, the Congressional Reparations Study Bill introduced by John Conyers every Congress since 1989. In 2000, the legislative and litigation demands were so great that the Board of Directors created the Legislative Commission to focus solely on legislative initiatives. In 1995, the Legal Strategies Commission began discussions with the National Conference of Black Lawyers and interested N'COBRA members about the development of reparations litigation. We were convinced that a litigation strategy was necessary and a memorandum was developed and shared with the Board of Directors in June 1997 that outlined the legal obstacles to such litigation and how they could be overcome. In September 1997 the Legal Strategies Commission created the N'COBRA Litigation Committee. This committee is composed of lawyers, social scientists and reparations activists. It is engaged in intensive research and analysis to develop and implement a reparations litigation strategy. The Legal Strategies Commission's Litigation Committee is currently involved in litigation in a number of ways: (1) It has reviews and provides professional critiques on litigation proposed by individuals and other groups, serving as consultants to these individuals and groups on political as well as legal issues. (2) It was asked to join the Reparations Coordinating Committee in August 2000 and in April 2001, the Chair of the Legal Strategies Commission, Adjoa A. Aiyetoro, was asked to serve as co-chair of the Reparations Coordinating Committee (RCC) with Charles Ogletree. The RCC is developing reparations litigation in collaboration with N'COBRA. (3) It filed an amicus brief in the Michigan Affirmative Action and Diversity cases in the United States Supreme Court in February 2003. (4) It is engaged in intensive work to develop and file litigation seeking reparations for the continuing vestiges of slavery. ******************************************************************************************************************************************************* Nos. 02-241 & 02-516
On Writ of Certiorari to the United States
______________________________________________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS
******************************************************************************************************************************************************* INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE Amicus National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America (N'COBRA) was founded in 1987 to work with individuals and other organizations to obtain reparations for the crimes against humanity known as chattel slavery and de jure and de facto racial discrimination. Amicus National Conference of Black Lawyers (NCBL) was founded in 1968, with the mission of serving as the legal arm of the movement for Black liberation, protecting human rights, achieving self-determination of Africa and African communities and working in coalition to assist in ending oppression of all peoples. Affirmative action in education is supported by Respondents on two grounds: remedial action for past and present discrimination and promotion of campus diversity. This brief focuses exclusively on the first proposition, and recasts it in the language of reparations: affirmative action in education is justified as reparations for the crimes of slavery and de jure racial discrimination. Such reparations are not only permissible under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but may well be required in order to fulfill its mission. The Fourteenth Amendment is not a purely 'color blind' enactment, but is a necessary legal tool for equality in the aftermath of chattel slavery. Use of the Fourteenth Amendment to strike down reparations for African Americans is strikingly inapposite to its purpose, language and intent. Strict scrutiny is not required in the cases before the Court today. Suspect racial classification is not required under a remedial affirmative action analysis, since the recipients are identified on the basis of a common injury rather than race. If the injured persons are in fact identified racially, that identification was made by the oppressors rather than the oppressed. Consequently, a less stringent level of review is appropriate here. The remedial use of affirmative action is entirely consistent with Equal Protection, as demonstrated in the obligations of the United States under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The Michigan affirmative action educational programs before the Court today should be upheld as reparations to African Americans. If remand is necessary, lower courts should be instructed to uphold the programs to the extent they satisfy this compelling state interest.
|