ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

United States v. City of Parma, PH. E. 0. H. Rpt.
Para. 13615 (N.D. Ohio, 1973)

19

[blocks in formation]

United States v. National Society of Professional
Engineers, 555 F.2d 978 (D.C. Cir. 1977), aff'd
46 U.S.L.W. 4356 (decided

U.S.

April 25, 1978)

[blocks in formation]

Village of Bellwood v. Gladstone Realtors, 569 F.2d
1013 (7th Cir. 1978)

31

1333

18

Cases Continued

Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia
Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748
(1976)

U.S.

Warner-Lambert Company v. F. T. C., 562 F.2d 749
(D.C. Cir. 1977), certiorari denied,
46 U.S.L.W. 3616 (April 3, 1978,

No. 77-855)

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

Page

26

26

32

18, 24, 26

18

Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. $1982 . .

18

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES

INTRODUCTION

This is an appeal in a fair housing suit brought by the United States against four trade associations under 42 U.S.c. §3613. The Appellant is not one of the original defendant associations but rather a member of one of the associations which 1/ entered into a settlement agreement with the government

1/ The association entering the settlement is the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers (hereinafter AIREA).

concluding the suit as to it. The Appellant, along with others similarly situated, was allowed limited permissive intervention ". . . solely for the purpose of contesting the legality of the settlement agreement insofar as it may infringe his constitutional right to freedom of speech." 442 F. Supp. at 2/

1076. He sought an injunction prohibiting execution of the

settlement agreement.

The court below denied the injunction and

approved the settlement agreement.

Appellant claims that the court below erred (1) in finding no state action involved in the settlement agreement, (2) in concluding that his first amendment rights were not violated by the terms of the agreement, and (3) in concluding that the First Amendment issues which he wished to raise were not ripe for decision. It is clear from the face of the settlement agreement (A. 37-107) that some of its terms would affect Milloway's conduct as an appraiser so long as he remained a member of AIREA. It is equally clear that other provisions of the settlement agreement affect only AIREA and would not, standing alone, affect him in any way. In his brief, however, the appellant has failed to specify which terms, if any, of the settlement agreement violate his First Amendment rights. Instead, in making an undifferentiated attack on the entire agreement, the

2/ The decision of the court below has been reported as United States v. American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, 442 F. Supp. 1072 (N.D. 111., 1977), and all references to the decision in this brief will be cited to the appropriate page of the reported case.

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »