green
Positive treatment
Doctrinal family: Brown v. Board of Education ↗
Quoted verbatim 1×
13.4 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2008 ·
…under explicit holdings of this court the obligation of every school district is to terminate dual school systems at once and to operate now and hereafter only unitary schools.
✓
Treatment trajectory · 1969 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1969
1997
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 43 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Cleveland v. Union Parish School Board
(3×)
under explicit holdings of this court the obligation of every school district is to terminate dual school systems at once and to operate now and hereafter only unitary schools.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jackson Women's Health Orgn v. Thomas Dobbs
Bd. of Ed., 396 U.S. 19, 20 (1969) (15 years after Brown v. Board, Mississippi continued to maintain segregated schools, prompting the Supreme Court to tell the State that it was “the obligation of every school district . . . to terminate dual school systems at once and to operate now and hereafter only unitary schools.”); Campaign for Southern Equality v. Bryant, 791 F.3d 625, 627 (5th Cir. 2015) (striking down Mississippi’s ban on same- sex marriage, explaining that “Obergefell, in both its Fourteenth and First Amendment iterations, is the law of the land and, 26 Case: 18-60868 Docum…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Linda Stout v. Gardendale City Board of Education
Bd. of Educ., 396 U.S. 19, 20 (1969), our predecessor circuit consolidated this case with twelve other desegregation cases and directed the district courts to require the immediate merger of “faculties and staff, transportation, services, athletics and other extracurricular activities” as well as the merger of “student bodies,” Singleton v. Jackson Mun.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
United States of America, Sheanda Bryant, Intervenors-Appellants, Cross-Appellees v. Lawrence County School District, Cross-Appellants
(8×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
I would affirm judgment of the district court, and I dissent from the decision to remand. 1 Alexander v. Holmes County Bd. of Educ., 396 U.S. 19 , 90 S.Ct. 29 , 24 L.Ed.2d 19 (1969) 2 419 F.2d 1211 (5th Cir.1969) 3 396 U.S. 19 , 90 S.Ct. 29 , 24 L.Ed.2d 19 (1969) 4 Id. at 21 , 90 S.Ct. at 30 (emphasis added) 5 Riddick v. School Bd. of Norfolk, 784 F.2d 521 , 533 (4th Cir.1986); Ross v. Houston Indep.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Donald Price and Melvin E. Price, Minors v. The Denison Independent School District
(2×)
In Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19 , 90 S.Ct. 29 , 24 L.Ed.2d 19 (1969), the Court decreed that the continued operation of segregated schools under the “all deliberate speed” standard must end and called for immediate operation “as unitary school systems within which no person is to be effectively excluded from'any school because of race or color.” Id. 396 U.S. at 20, 90 S.Ct. at 29. .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Virgie Lee Valley v. Rapides Parish School Board
Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19, 20 , 90 S.Ct. 29 , 24 L.Ed.2d 19, 20 (1969); Dowell v. Board of Education, 396 U.S. 269, 270 , 90 S.Ct. 415, 416 , 24 L.Ed.2d 414, 416 (1969); Bradley v. School Board, 382 U.S. 103, 105 , 86 S.Ct. 224, 225 , 15 L.Ed.2d 187, 189 (1965); Rogers v. Paul, 382 U.S. 198, 199 , 86 S.Ct. 358, 359 , 15 L.Ed.2d 265, 267 (1965).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Virgie Lee Valley, United States of America, Intervenor-Appellee v. Rapides Parish School Board, Virgie Lee Valley, United States of America, Intervenor-Appellee v. Rapides Parish School Board, Clyde Holloway, Virgie Lee Valley v. Rapides Parish School Board v. Nelson Laborde, Intervenors-Appellants v. United States of America, Intervenor-Appellee. Virgie Lee Valley, United States of America, Intervenor-Appellee v. Rapides Parish School Board, Marshall T. Cappel, Sheriff of Rapides Parish, Movant-Appellant. Virgie Lee Valley v. Rapides Parish School Board v. Nelson Laborde, Intervenors-Appellants v. United States of America, Intervenor-Appellee. Virgie Lee Valley, and United States of America, Intervenor-Appellee v. Rapides Parish School Board, State of Louisiana
Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19, 20 , 90 S.Ct. 29 , 24 L.Ed.2d 19, 20 (1969); Dowell v. Board of Education, 396 U.S. 269, 270 , 90 S.Ct. 415, 416 , 24 L.Ed.2d 414, 416 (1969); Bradley v. School Board, 382 U.S. 103, 105 , 86 S.Ct. 224, 225 , 15 L.Ed.2d 187, 189 (1965); Rogers v. Paul, 382 U.S. 198, 199 , 86 S.Ct. 358, 359 , 15 L.Ed.2d 265, 267 (1965). 89 In the case sub judice, sixteen years of litigation have not achieved the goal of a unitary system.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. South Bend Community School Corp.
If subject matter jurisdiction in the district courts turned upon what local school boards can do, or what local school boards promise to do, or even what local school boards in good faith intend to do, it *1357 is quite likely that as a nation we would have been even more delinquent in effecting the mandate of Brown v. Board of Education than we have been. 5 It was for this very reason that by the late 1960’s the Supreme Court found it necessary to reiterate the imperative that desegregation be effected with “all deliberate speed” and to remind litigants in school desegregation cases th…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kelley v. Metropolitan County Board of Education
In Alexander v. Holmes County Bd. of Educ., 396 U.S. 19, 20 , 90 S.Ct. 29 , 24 L.Ed.2d 19, 21 (1969) (per curiam), the Supreme Court mandated a system “within which no person is to be effectively excluded from any school because of race or color.” This definition was reiterated in the concurring opinion of Chief Justice Burger in Northcross v. Board of Educ., 397 U.S. 232, 237 , 90 S.Ct. 891, 893 , 25 L.Ed.2d 246, 250-51 (1970) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Berry v. School Dist. of City of Benton Harbor
A unitary school system is one in which “no person is,to be effectively excluded from any school because of race or color.” Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19, 20 , 90 S.Ct. 29, 30 , 24 L.Ed.2d 19, 21 (1969). 7 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
The Bilingual Bicultural Coalition on Mass Media, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Mission Central Co., Intervenor. Chinese for Affirmative Action v. Federal Communications Commission, Cbs, Inc., Intervenor
(Brown II), 349 U.S. 294, 301 , 75 S.Ct. 753, 757 , 99 L.Ed. 1083, 1106 (1955) with Alexander v. Holmes County Bd. of Educ., 396 U.S. 19, 20 , 90 S.Ct. 29 , 24 L.Ed.2d 19, 21 (1969) 70 Supra note 41 71 Stone v. FCC, supra note 41, 151 U.S.App.D.C. at 159, 466 F.2d at 330 72 Whether such a disparity is actually significant would depend on the number of station employees and the number of minority-group employees expectable in the absence of discrimination.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bilingual Bicultural Coalition on Mass Media, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
(Brown II), 349 U.S. 294, 301 , 75 S.Ct. 753, 757 , 99 L.Ed. 1083, 1106 (1955) with Alexander v. Holmes County Bd. of Educ., 396 U.S. 19 . 20, 90 S.Ct. 29 , 24 L.Ed.2d 19, 21 (1969). .Supra note 41. .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Tasby v. Estes
Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 740-741 , 94 S.Ct. 3112, 3125 , 41 L.Ed.2d 1069, 1088-1089 (1974); Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19, 20 , 90 S.Ct. 29 , 24 L.Ed.2d 19, 21 (1969); Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 301 , 75 S.Ct. 753, 756 , 99 L.Ed. 1083, 1106 (1955).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Vivian Calhoun, Deborah Birt, Intervenors-Appellants, Emma Armour, Intervenors-Appellants v. Ed S. Cook
See Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 740-741 , 94 S.Ct. 3112, 3125 , 41 L.Ed.2d 1069, 1088-1089 (1974); Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19, 20 , 90 S.Ct. 29, 29-30 , 24 L.Ed.2d 19, 21 (1969); Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294, 301 , 75 S.Ct. 753, 756 , 99 L.Ed. 1083 (1955).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Milliken v. Bradley
(2×)
Imperative insistence on immediate full desegregation of dual school systems "to operate now and hereafter only unitary schools" was reiterated in Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U. S. 19, 20 (1969), and Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Board, 396 U. S. 290 (1970).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gilmore v. City of Montgomery
(2×)
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U. S. 1 (1958); Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U. S., at 437-438 ; Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U. S. 19, 20 (1969).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Goss v. Board of Education
Of course, the District Court must conduct'forthwith such proceedings as may be required for prompt determination of this question, and, should it find respondents have not maintained a unitary school system, respondents must “terminate dual school systems at once.” Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U. S. 19, 20 (1969).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
San Francisco Unified School District v. Johnson
(2×)
The United States Supreme Court has directed that segregation in public schools must terminate “at once.” (Alexander v. Board of Education (1969) 396 U.S. 19, 20 [ 24 L.Ed.2d 19, 21 , 90 S.Ct. 29 ].) Since section 1009.5, under one interpretation, may delay desegregation, prompt judicial action is essential to comply with this direction.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Shirley Bivins v. Bibb County Board of Education, Etc., Oscar C. Thomie, Jr. v. Houston County Board of Education
(2×)
These two school desegregation cases differ from many which this Court has lately reversed and remanded for compliance with Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School System (and consolidated cases en banc), 5 Cir. 1969, 419 F.2d 1211 , Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 1969, 396 U.S. 19 , 90 S.Ct. 29 , 24 L.Ed.2d 19 , and now Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Board, January 14, 1970, 396 U.S. 290 , 90 S.Ct. 608 , 24 L.Ed.2d 477 , for these two cases were among the cases consolidated in our en banc decision in Singleton.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Northcross v. Board of Ed. of Memphis City Schools
In Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U. S. 19 *237 (1969), we stated, albeit perhaps too cryptically, that a unitary system was one "within which no person is to be effectively excluded from any school because of race or color." From what is now before us in this case it is not clear what issues might be raised or developed on argument.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
9 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1122, 7 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9412 Derek Jerome Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, No. 26285. Clarence Anthony v. Marshall County Board of Education, No. 28261. United States of America v. Charles F. Mathews, No. 28045. Linda Stout, by Her Father and Next Friend Blevin Stout, Plaintiffs- United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor v. Jefferson County Board of Education, Doris Elaine Brown, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor v. The Board of Education of the City of Bessemer, No. 28350. Birdie Mae Davis, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, Twila Frazier, Defendants-Intervenor-Appellees. No. 28349. Robert Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Board, Sharon Lynne George v. C. Walter Davis, President, East Feliciana Parish School Board, No. 28340. Irma J. Smith v. Concordia Parish School Board, No. 28342. Hemon Harris, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross v. St. John the Baptist Parish School Board, Defendants-Appellees-Cross No. 28361. Neely Bennett v. R. E. Evans, Allene Patricia Ann Bennett, a Minor, by R. B. Bennett, Her Father and Next Friend v. Burke County Board of Education, No. 28409. Shirley Bivins v. Bibb County Board of Education and Orphanage for Bibb County ., No. 28407. Oscar C. Thomie, Jr. v. Houston County Board of Education, No. 28408. Jean Carolyn Youngblood, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor v. The Board of Public Instruction of Bay County, Florida, Defendants- No. 27863. Lavon Wright v. The Board of Public Instruction of Alachua County, Florida, Defendants
It sent the doctrine of deliberate speed to its final resting place. 396 U.S. at pp. 19, 20, 21, 90 S.Ct. at pp. 29-30, 24 L.Ed.2d at p. 21. 25 The rule of the case is to be found in the direction to this court to issue its order 'effective immediately declaring that each of the school districts * * * may no longer operate a dual school system based on race or color, and directing that they begin immediately to operate as unitary school systems within which no person is to be effectively excluded from any school because of race or color.' We effectuated this rule and order in United States v. …
examined
Cited "see"
Robinson v. Vollert
(3×)
See Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19 , 90 S.Ct. 29 , 24 L.Ed.2d 19 (1969).
examined
Cited "see"
Sierra Club v. Lynn
(3×)
See Alexander v. Holmes County Bd. of Ed., 396 U.S. 19, 21 , 90 S.Ct. 29 , 24 L.Ed.2d 19 (1969); United States v. Hinds County School Bd., 433 F.2d 611, 618-619 (5th Cir. 1970); Holland v. Bd. of Public Instruction, 465 F.2d 370 . (5th Cir. 1972).
examined
Cited "see"
Adams v. Richardson
(3×)
See Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19, 20 , 90 S.Ct. 29 , 24 L.Ed.2d 19 (1969); Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430, 438-439 , 88 S.Ct. 1689 , 20 L.Ed.2d 716 (1968); Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, 377 U.S. 218, 234 , 84 S.Ct. 1226 , 12 L.Ed.2d 256 (1964).
examined
Cited "see"
Northcross v. Board of Education of Memphis City Schools
(3×)
See Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19 , 90 S.Ct. 29 , 24 L.Ed.2d 19 (1969) 4: Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Board, 396 U.S. 226 , 90 S.Ct. 518 , 24 L.Ed.2d 549 (1969) ; cf. Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430, 438-439, 442 , 88 S.Ct. 1689 , 20 L.Ed.2d 716 (1968). .
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Lubbock Independent School District
(3×)
See Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430 , 88 S.Ct. 1689 , 20 L.Ed.2d 716 (1968) and Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Educa tion, 396 U.S. 19 , 90 S.Ct. 29 , 24 L.Ed. 2d 19 (1969).
examined
Cited "see"
Evelyn R. Ellis v. Board of Public Instruction of Orange County, Florida
(3×)
See Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 1969, 396 U.S. 19 , 90 S.Ct. 29 , 24 L.Ed.2d 19 ; United States v. Hinds County School Board, 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F.2d 852 [November 7, 1969], Singleton v. Jackson Municipal School District (and consolidated en banc cases), 5 Cir., 1969, 419 F.2d 1211 [December 1, 1969].
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Thomas County Branch of the National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. City of Thomasville School District
(3×)
See Alexander v. Holmes County Bd. of Educ., 396 U.S. 1218, 1219 , 90 S.Ct. 14 , 24 L.Ed.2d 41 (1969) (Justice Black, in his denial of a school board's application to vacate suspension of an order requiring submission of accelerated desegregation plans, nevertheless explained that " 'all deliberate speed' has turned out to be only a soft euphemism for delay”); see also Alexander v. Holmes County Bd. of Educ., 396 U.S. 19, 20 , 90 S.Ct. 29 , 24 L.Ed.2d 19 (1969) (per curiam) (“[CJontinued operation of segregated schools under a standard of allowing 'all deliberate speed’ for desegregation…
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. State of La.
(3×)
See In re Slagle, 961 F.2d 513, 514 (5th Cir.1992). [2] 461 U.S. 1303 , 103 S.Ct. 1810 , 75 L.Ed.2d 924 (1983) (O'Connor, J., in chambers). [3] United States v. Fordice, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 2727 , 120 L.Ed.2d 575 (1992). [4] United States v. Texas, 523 F.Supp. 703, 723 (E.D.Tex.1981) (Justice, J.). [5] See id. (citing Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklendurg Board of Education, 399 U.S. 926 , 90 S.Ct. 2247 , 26 L.Ed.2d 791 (1971); Carter v. West Feliciana Parish Board, 396 U.S. 226 , 90 S.Ct. 467 , 24 L.Ed.2d 382 (1969); Winston-Salem/Forsyth Board of Education v. Scott, 404 U.S. 1221 , 92 S.Ct. 123…
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Louisiana
(3×)
See id. (citing Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklendurg Board of Education, 399 U.S. 926 , 90 S.Ct. 2247 , 26 L.Ed.2d 791 (1971); Carter v. West Feliciana Parish Board, 396 U.S. 226 , 90 S.Ct. 467 , 24 L.Ed.2d 382 (1969); Winston-Salem/Forsyth Board of Education v. Scott, 404 U.S. 1221 , 92 S.Ct. 1236 , 31 L.Ed.2d 441 (1971) (Burger, C.J., in chambers)); see also Alexander v. Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19 , 90 S.Ct. 29 , 24 L.Ed.2d 19 (1969); Davis v. Commissioners of Mobile County, 402 U.S. 33 , 91 S.Ct. 1289 , 28 L.Ed.2d 577 (1971); Morgan v. Kerrigan, 523 F.2d 917, 921 (1st Cir.1975) (per curiam) …
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Jacksonville Branch, Naacp, Cross-Appellee v. The Duval County School Board, a Body Corporate, Cross-Appellant
(3×)
Id. at 495 , 74 S.Ct. at 692 ; see also Brown II, 349 U.S. at 300-01 , 75 S.Ct. at 756-57 (instructing school authorities how to comply with commands of Brown I.) In subsequent decisions, the Court explained that the ultimate obligation of school districts was to effect a “transition to a unitary, nonracial system of public education_” Green v. County School Bd., 391 U.S. 430, 436 , 88 S.Ct. 1689 -93, 20 L.Ed.2d 716 (1968); see also Alexander v. Holmes County Bd. of Educ., 396 U.S. 19, 20 , 90 S.Ct. 29, 29-30 , 24 L.Ed.2d 19 (1969).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Charlie Wade v. Thomas Hegner
(3×)
Griffin v. Prince Edward County Bd. of Educ., 377 U.S. 218, 234 , 84 S.Ct. 1226, 1234 , 12 L.Ed.2d 256 ; see also Alexander v. Holmes County Bd. of Educ., 396 U.S. 19, 20 , 90 S.Ct. 29 , 24 L.Ed.2d 19 (per curiam).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Warren H. Wheeler v. The Durham County Board of Education, a Body Politic
(3×)
See also Alexander v. Holmes County Bd. of Educ., 396 U.S. 19 , 90 S.Ct. 29 , 24 L.Ed.2d 19 (1969). 3 .
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Beaumont Independent School District v. Department of Health, Education and Welfare
(3×)
See also Alexander v. Holmes County Bd. of Education, 396 U.S. 19 , 90 S.Ct. 29 , 24 L.Ed.2d 19 (1969).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Sierra Club v. Lynn
(3×)
See, e.g., Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19 , 90 S.Ct. 29 , 24 L.Ed.2d 19 (1969).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Sierra Club v. Lynn
(3×)
See, e. g., Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19 , 90 S.Ct. 29 , 24 L.Ed.2d 19 (1969).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Pete D. Arvizu v. Waco Independent School District, Patricia Ann Baisey v. The Board of Trustees of the Waco Independent School District
(3×)
See also Alexander v. Holmes County Bd. of Education, 396 U.S. 19 , 90 S.Ct. 29 , 24 L.Ed.2d 19 , rehearing denied, 396 U.S. 976 , 90 S.Ct. 437 , 24 L.Ed.2d 447 (1969).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Texas Education Agency (Austin Independent School District)
(6×)
See also Alexander v. Holmes County, 1969, 396 U.S. 19 , 90 S.Ct. 29 , 24 L.Ed.2d 19 ; Carter v. West Feliciana Parish, 1969, 396 U.S. 290 , 90 S.Ct. 608 , 24 L.Ed.2d 477 .
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Deborah A. Northcross, Cross-Appellants v. Board of Education of the Memphis City Schools, Cross-Appellees
(6×)
See also Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19 , 90 S.Ct. 29 , 24 L.Ed.2d 19 (1969); Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Board, 396 U.S. 226 , 90 S.Ct. 467 , 24 L.Ed.2d 382 (1969) (granting temporary injunctive relief); Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Board, 396 U.S. 290 , 90 S.Ct. 608 , 24 L.Ed.2d 477 (1970).” The Supreme Court subsequently denied certiorari on this court’s denial of a stay order in the KeUey case.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
JEFFERSON PARISH SCHOOL BOARD Et Al. v. DANDRIDGE Et Al.
See, e. g., Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U. S. 19 (1969); Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Board, 396 U. S. 226 (1969); Keyes v. Denver School District, 396 U. S. 1215 (1969) (Brennan, J., in chambers).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Robert W. Kelley and Henry C. Maxwell, Jr. v. Metropolitan County Board of Education of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee
(6×)
See also Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19 , 90 S.Ct. 29 , 24 L.Ed.2d 19 (1969); Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Board, 396 U.S. 226 , 90 S.Ct. 467 , 24 L.Ed.2d 382 (1969) (granting temporary injunctive relief); Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Board, 396 U.S. 290 , 90 S.Ct. 608 , 24 L.Ed.2d 477 (1970).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Terry v. Elmwood Cemetery
(3×)
See, e. g., Alexander v. Holmes County Bd. of Educ., 396 U.S. 19 , 90 S.Ct. 29 , 24 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
ALEXANDER Et Al.
v.
HOLMES COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION Et Al.
v.
HOLMES COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION Et Al.
632.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 29, 1969.
Jack Greenberg argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief were James M. Nabrit III, Norman C. Amaker, Melvyn Zarr, and Charles L. Black, Jr., Assistant Attorney General Leonard argued the cause for the United States. With him on the memorandum was Solicitor General Griswold. A. F. Summer, Attorney General of Mississippi, and John C. Satterfield argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents other than the United States., Louis F. Oberdorfer argued the cause for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were John W. Douglas, Bethuel M. Webster, Cyrus R. Vance, Asa Sokolow, John Schafer, John Door, Richard C. Dinkel-spiel, Arthur II. Dean, Lloyd N. Cutler, Bruce Bromley, Berl I. Bernhard, Timothy B. Dyk, and Michael R. Klein., Richard B. Sobol and David Rubin filed a brief for the National Education Association as amicus curiae urging reversal. The Tennessee Federation for Constitutional Government filed a brief as amicus curiae.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 382 opinions | Published
Citer courts: W.D. Louisiana (3)
Per Curiam.
This case comes to the Court on a petition for cer-tiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The petition was granted on October 9, 1969, and the case set down for early argument. The question presented is one of paramount importance, involving as it does the denial of fundamental rights to many thousands of school children, who are presently attending Mississippi schools under segregated conditions contrary to the applicable decisions of this Court. Against this background the Court of Appeals should have denied all motions for additional time because continued operation of segregated schools under a standard of allowing “all deliberate speed” for desegregation is no longer constitutionally permissible. Under explicit holdings of this Court the obligation of every school district is to terminate dual school systems at once and to operate now and hereafter only unitary schools. Griffin v. School Board, 377 U. S. 218, 234 (1964); Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U. S. 430, 438-439, 442 (1968). Accordingly,
It is hereby adjudged, ordered, and decreed:
1. The Court of Appeals’ order of August 28, 1969, is vacated, and the case is remanded to that court to issue its decree and order, effective immediately, declaring that each of the school districts here involved may no longer operate a dual school system based on race or color, and directing that they begin immediately to operate as unitary school systems within which no person is to be effectively excluded from any school because of race or color.
[*21] 2. The Court of Appeals may in its discretion direct the schools here involved to accept all or any part of the August 11, 1969, recommendations of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, with any modifications which that court deems proper insofar as those recommendations insure a totally unitary school system for all eligible pupils without regard to race or color.
The Court of Appeals may make its determination and enter its order without further arguments or submissions.
3. While each of these school systems is being operated as a unitary system under the order of the Court of Appeals, the District Court may hear and consider objections thereto or proposed amendments thereof, provided, however, that the Court of Appeals’ order shall be complied with in all respects while the District Court considers such objections or amendments, if any are made. No amendment shall become effective before being passed upon by the Court of Appeals.
4. The Court of Appeals shall retain jurisdiction to insure prompt and faithful compliance with its order, and may modify or amend the same as may be deemed necessary or desirable for the operation of a unitary school system.
5. The order of the Court of Appeals dated August 28, 1969, having been vacated and the case remanded for proceedings in conformity with this order, the judgment shall issue forthwith and the Court of Appeals is requested to give priority to the execution of this judgment as far as possible and necessary.