This article cites information from an article titled: “Constance Baker Motley’s Forgotten Housing Legacy,“ written by Donovan J. Stone – Duke Law School and published in the Utah Law Review in 2021.

SHREVEPORT, La. (KTAL/KMSS)—An attorney who was instrumental in the landmark school desegregation case Brown v. Board of Education and other federal civil rights cases also argued in court on behalf of Black residents of Shreveport denied the American Dream of homeownership.

Constance Baker Motley was a civil rights attorney who rose through the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF) ranks first as a researcher. She also served as a staff attorney and eventually became Thurgood Marshall’s principal assistant.

While at the LDF, she was a crucial team member who won the landmark Supreme Court case that led to the desegregation of public schools in the United States.

In an article published in the Yale Law Journal titled “My Personal Debt to Thurgood Marshall,” Motley said, “By the time I left the LDF in February 1965…I was one of the best-known civil rights lawyers in the country.”

Motley made many trips to the Jim Crow South alone, working almost singlehandedly to desegregate housing projects, transportation facilities, lunch counters, museums, libraries, parks, and other public accommodations.

One such housing issue brought her to Shreveport, which, in a 1960 research study, was found to be “the second most segregated city in America.” Baker’s fight on behalf of Shreveport’s Black citizens started after a proposed housing development became a hot-button issue in the city.

In Shreveport, segregation is the status quo

Shreveport was extremely segregated at the time and had “a long history of racial discrimination,” with most of its Black residents living in housing projects and shotgun houses, primarily in the Lakeside and Allendale communities. Cooper Road would not become part of Shreveport for another two decades.

Racism and discrimination were so prevalent that elected officials declined federal grant funding to deny Black workers entry into the city’s economic development.

In 1943, Shreveport Mayor Samuel S. Caldwell was quoted saying the city would not be “bribed by federal funds” into accepting “the negro as our political or social equal.” And that the government could not “cram the negro down our throats.” This was in response to the city rejecting a $67,000 federal grant for a new medical center because taking the money required compliance with a quota to hire “twelve Blacks for every hundred workers.”

In early 1953, an opportunity that would prove too good to be true was presented to Shreveport’s “upwardly mobile” Black residents.

A land development deal was concocted by an official with the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), a local builder, and an investor from New York. The trio approached the city’s Negro Chamber of Commerce, selling the dream of home ownership in a housing subdivision dubbed “Clarke Terrace.”

Clarke Terrace promised spacious homes featuring utilities, trolley transportation, playgrounds, and schools and churches nearby. The homes would be federally insured, keeping payments low—$38 per month with an initial down payment of $330.

Potential buyers were sold on the idea of a subdivision with modern amenities where young professionals could proudly raise a family.

Clarke Terrace’s promise was a stark contrast to the city’s housing at the time, which left Black residents in substandard living conditions. The development was a solution—unfortunately, one glaring obstacle was not factored into the planning: racism.

The development was planned for southwest Shreveport on Jewella Road, which was primarily white then. The location concerned Black residents, who were excited about the opportunity to live with dignity but also understood that their presence would be met with swift backlash.

At the pitch meeting, representatives of the Negro Chamber raised their concerns but were assured by the developers that there would be no issues and they would “take care of that.”

Shreveport’s Negro Chamber of Commerce says yes to Clarke Terrace

Leaders in the negro community supported the construction project because the need for quality living accommodations was too great to ignore. The NCC sought to “foster and promote the welfare of (the) Negroes of Shreveport,” and a brand new housing development that could build intergenerational wealth was in perfect alignment with that goal. There was also the possibility of better jobs, and NCC leaders lobbied for builders to hire “negro labor” during the construction phase.

John H. Wilson was the NCC president at the time and advocated for Clarke Terrace. He signed on to purchase Unit Number 2, and it was not long before he convinced dozens of other Black families to subscribe.

As word spread that there was even thought of placing negro homebuyers within a stone’s throw of whites, criticism was immediate.

The city’s elected leaders, local churches, and civic organizations coalesced to make the proposed Clarke Terrace subdivision “Shreveport’s most contentious racial issue” from March 1953 to March 1954.

The first organization to openly oppose the neighborhood was Emmanuel Baptist Church.

The congregation, consisting of about 800 members, held a special session that resulted in a series of resolutions opposing the project. Church members stated that a Black subdivision “would be an outright disrespect for our own race of white people” and “would be detrimental to (the) church in many respects.

These bold proclamations led other organizations to follow suit—even those that did not live, work, or worship in the proposed development area. The Caddo Parish Police Jury used its legislative power to draft a resolution declaring that the construction of a colored housing unit would disrupt the harmonious relationship between white and colored residents.

The police jury did not stop there. They actually went a step further, showing their full support for a segregated Shreveport; the police jurors recommended that the developers repurpose Clarke Terrace as a subdivision for white residents.

Shreveport makes national headlines for the wrong reasons

Influential Black newspapers reported on the issues facing the proposed residential subdivision. Black Americans across the country watched as opposition to Clarke Terrace grew, and prominent ministers publicly rebuked the wide opposition.

Despite the minister’s rebuke and the nation’s gaze – threats of violence overcame the development, and subscribers to Clarke Terrace plummeted.

As quickly as prospective buyers opted out, Wilson was trying to replace them but struggled because the fear of racial violence was real. Many even reportedly asked him, “Don’t you think I would get killed?”

The few families courageous enough to stand their ground decided to take the issue to court.

In early 1954, John Wilson wrote to the NAACP’s Southwest Regional Counsel, U. Simpson Tate, for help. Many prominent Black leaders of the time co-signed the letter.

Tate, who was based in Dallas, cautioned the group that a lawsuit could not be filed unless Clark Terrace Developers showed “a clear indication” to terminate the project. If the developers reneged on the deal, Tate argued that a federal court challenge to enforce the contracts could be filed, reasoning that issues of racial segregation in housing were often ruled unconstitutional.

Understanding the significance of the issues in Shreveport, Tate forwarded his letter to LDF lawyers in the NAACP’s national office – this is where Constance Baker Motley’s long-forgotten fight for equal housing in Shreveport begins.

On March 4, 1954, Motley, who was serving as LDF’s assistant counsel, wrote to Thurgood Marshal confirming that she received Tate’s letter and would take on the case.

Candace Baker Motley’s track record of success with housing discrimination

At a time when only three percent of attorneys were women, and less than one-half of one percent of those women were African American, Motley, a Columbia Law grad, was already well-known in the area of civil rights.

Tomiko Brown-Nagin said those statistics “made Motley virtually invisible within the legal profession but all too conspicuous in the courtroom.”

As the events in Shreveport took shape, Motley and Marshall had already made waves throughout the South, successfully arguing housing discrimination cases across the Bible belt.

Motley and Tate understood the Clarke Terrace issue was unique compared to others. In other cases, the LDF argued against discrimination in public housing developments. This would be their first time taking on a private development backed by the FHA.

Tate and the LDF decided that including the FHA on the lawsuit would prevent the agency from insuring loans on Clarke Terrace lots for purchasers who were not Black.

Tate believed they could prove that in the case of Clarke Terrace, the FHA was “tacitly lending itself in support of the perpetuation of segregated housing.”

And as Tate and Motley communicated and strategized through letters on March 23, they had a legal breakthrough.

The developers of Clarke Terrace announced they were abandoning plans for a Black subdivision along Jewella Road and would instead develop the site for white families. They decided to build another subdivision for Blacks along Line Avenue near another Black enclave, Cedar Grove.

When asked why the change, George Johnson, head of the Bossier Construction Company, cited “financial difficulties.”

However, rapid progress was made on the “financially difficult” Clarke Terrace project, which was rebranded as “West Morningside”; on March 26, two homes were under construction.

As the developers moved forward with a plan more suitable to the residents and elected officials who opposed Clarke Terrace, they also attempted to refund the potential buyers, including John Wilson and Richard Stewart, writing that he and the other developers “regret exceedingly our inability to consummate the project but feel there is no point in going further in our effort.”

Both Wilson and Stewart responded in writing that they would not accept refunds – Stewart’s response took the message a step further, saying, “refuse to accept on advice of counsel.”

Goodman’s communications made it unmistakable that his group was terminating the project, and at that point, the NAACP intervened.

Famed New Orleans attorney A.P. Tureaud, Sr. spoke on Shreveport’s housing issues in a speech called “The Fight for Legal Rights,” during which he rebuked the developers’ decision to re-imagine the development.

Motley was set to arrive in Shreveport in May 1954 and requested a meeting with the plaintiffs and the president of the local NAACP branch for the first of many trips that she would bravely make alone.

Black travelers had few accommodations in Shreveport, so Motley stayed at John Wilson’s home, and Richard Stewart served as her driver and escort throughout the city.

Historians would later note that Motely “expressed dismay regarding Negoroes’ refusal” to discuss “racial discrimination and mistreatment by local officials.” She was also met with hesitation from fellow Black attorneys who refused to cooperate and help develop the case.

Motley believed the hesitation directly resulted from white residents’ backlash to the disruption in the status quo that civil rights agitation brought. Stewart blamed Black elites and “snitches” who often cooperated with white officials in exchange for favors or perceived influence.

With her fact-finding mission completed, Motely was returned to her base in New York to prepare her filing. She named Richard Stewart and John Wilson as the lead plaintiffs in a 100 percent class action captioned Stewart v. Clarke Terrace Unit No. 1. Defendants in the case were the Clarke Terrace cooperative corporations, Jerry Goodman, representatives of the Bossier Construction Company, and local and national FHA officials.

The court of popular opinion and racialized policies

Witnesses were reportedly hostile, and exchanges with opposition counsel were volatile; the issue was also covered in local newspapers. The media reported that unlike Clarke Terrace, the new development was “zoned for Negro use.”

Opposing counsel grilled Jerry Goodman on why the development plans switched and asked him to explain whether or not the city of Shreveport had neighborhood zoning conducted by race – a measure that would be unconstitutional under Supreme Court precedent.

Goodman, in his testimony, said there were ordinances in place that designated certain areas as appropriate for Black homes; however, he would later backpedal and say that he wasn’t sure if those ordinances were still in effect, but he was sure that there were residential areas specified for Negroes.

Lawyers for the defense argued that questions of race were “totally irrelevant and immaterial” to the case and called the process a waste of time.

When pressed about the meetings held at Emmanuel Baptist Church opposing the development, Goodman asserted that the group pivoted on the idea after “sales plummeted in late 1953,” and the project was determined to be no longer feasible. He also dismissed any connection between the public hostility and plan change.

Conversely, Goodman was confident during questioning that the new development in Cedar Grove along Line Avenue would succeed.

Once depositions were completed, Motley and her team of litigators were ready to file pretrial motions to have the issue heard. The case landed in the courtroom of U.S. District Judge Benjamin Dawkins, who was considered one of the most “ardent segregationists” on the federal bench at that time. Despite his personal views on issues of race, he was “highly sensitive to the injustices and gross inequalities.”

However, he ruled as expected and dismissed the case on December 29, 1954, stating that the federal court lacked jurisdiction. Even if the court had jurisdiction, he ruled the court lacked authority to compel specific performance of the plaintiffs’ contracts.

“Injunctions do not lie against alleged conspiracies,” Dawkins said. He noted that the plaintiffs could file a new lawsuit for monetary damages, which the court had the authority to order. However, he cautioned that it was “very doubtful…that the officials named as proposed defendants could be held liable.”

The NAACP never filed a second lawsuit for damages.

Generations have passed since Constance Baker Motley took the train in and out of Shreveport to fight housing discrimination based on race. Her work on behalf of the city’s Black residents is largely forgotten, eclipsed by the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education which challenged the concept of “separate but equal” accommodations in public schools. Brown was the centerpiece of the work that the LDF was trying to achieve, and it deserves all of the attention it garnered.

Unfortunately, much of the work on Motley’s housing cases is long forgotten. This is a sad fact for the countless people who were adversely affected by housing discrimination and many others who had no champion and, therefore, no recourse even to take up the cause.

Motley’s work in challenging equitable access to the main tenet of the American Dream in Shreveport and throughout the South should be studied as a reminder of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s words, “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”