Whether a writ of mandamus should direct the Clerk of the United States Supreme Court to reissue the Brown v. Board with the proper case listed first: Briggs v. Elliott

QUESTION PRESENTED When the case that ultimately became known as Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) was originally brought before this Court on a writ of certiorari it was to consolidate cases relating to unconstitutional racial segregation of public education. These cases emerged from several states and Washington, D.C. The naming of the consolidated cases failed to recognize the first case filed; the South Carolina case Briggs v. Elliott. The plaintiffs in Briggs filed first in United States District Court, filed first in the United States Supreme Court, and brought the case that was argued by the Honorable Thurgood Marshall based upon the dissent in the South Carolina case. After its original filing, the Briggs case was remanded to the District Court for an additional examination. When the petitioners returned to this Court, the Clerk inadvertently docketed the Briggs case after Brown instead of placing it back as the first case filed. This inadvertent clerical misstep deprived the petitioners their rightful place in history in spite of the great physical, emotional, and financial risks taken by each petitioner. The petitioners request that their place in history be restored by the simple act of reordering the petitioners to the just and accurate place. The question presented is whether a writ of mandamus should direct the Clerk of the United States Supreme Court to reissue the Brown v. Board with the proper case listed first: Briggs v. Elliott.