Shelton v. Tucker

PETITIONER: Shelton
RESPONDENT: Tucker
LOCATION: Huntington National Bank

DOCKET NO.: 14
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1958-1962)
LOWER COURT:

CITATION: 364 US 479 (1960)
ARGUED: Nov 07, 1960
DECIDED: Dec 12, 1960

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Shelton v. Tucker

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - November 07, 1960 in Shelton v. Tucker

Earl Warren:

Number 83, Max Carr et al., Petitioners, versus R. A. Young et al.

Mr. Dunaway.

Edwin E. Dunaway:

Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.

I represent the two petitioners, Max Carr and Ernest Gephardt.

Max Carr was an Associate Professor of Music at the University of Arkansas, until he was discharged because of failure to comply with Act 10.

Ernest Gephardt was a vocational printing instructor at Central High School in Little Rock until he was discharged for the same reason.

We filed separate suits.

They were consolidated for trial in the Chancery Court and in the Supreme Court of Arkansas and the case is here on certiorari.

Now, there are several facts in our case which I think is important to make clear at the outset which add something to the other case, the Shelton case.

Carr and Gephardt did not refuse to file any affidavit, Carr being required to file an affirmation but in both cases, these two petitioners listed the professional organizations of which they were members, stated that they are not now and never have been, members of a subversive organization and offered to answer any questions touching upon their associations and activities which their administrative superiors might constitutionally ask them touching on their qualifications to continue teaching.

They refused to give the additional broad information required by the statute.

The record shows that no additional questions were asked of these or these teachers.

At the trial, the President of the University of Arkansas testified that he personally and the others in the administration wanted Carr to continue teaching that there had been no complaints about his teaching.

The same thing was true in the Gephardt case.

The superintendent of schools of Little Rock testified that Gephardt's principal had recommended that his contract be renewed and that but for Act 10, he would be -- would continue to be employed.

Since I am sure that the respondents in this case will argue substantially what was argued by the appellees in the other case.

I will proceed that both by making my argument and answering what I conceive to be erroneous contentions of what the applicable law is.

(Inaudible)

Edwin E. Dunaway:

The –

(Inaudible)

Edwin E. Dunaway:

The University of Arkansas does have tenure regulations.

There is no statutory authority in Arkansas for any tenure regulations.

As was stated, it varies from each college, depending on what each College Board wants to do.

(Inaudible)

Edwin E. Dunaway:

Theoretically, he can only be dismissed because after you've been there four years --

(Inaudible)

Edwin E. Dunaway:

But they have a -- each one gets a new contract which must -- each year there -- there's a new --

(Inaudible)

Edwin E. Dunaway:

Right.

There is a sample contract in the record, Carr’s contract on page 99 of the record which is the typical contract that the University grants annually --