Blacks, Women Hit High Among Commissioners News Clipping
Press
December 6, 1982

Cite this item
-
Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Working Files - Guinier. Memorandum from Gibbs to Guinier; Monroe v. Board of Commissioners of the City of Jackson Court Opinion; United States v. Scotland Neck City Board of Education Court Opinion, 1984. fecf58e6-e192-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/e989d3bf-76e0-4546-8964-d1546c8cc416/memorandum-from-gibbs-to-guinier-monroe-v-board-of-commissioners-of-the-city-of-jackson-court-opinion-united-states-v-scotland-neck-city-board-of-education-court-opinion. Accessed May 22, 2025.
Copied!
MEMORANDUM TO: Lani Guinier FROM: Meredith Gibbs RE: Edmisten v. Gingles July 1.3, 1984 At the district court hearing in the above matter, the goverment offered into evidence the testimony of black community leaders who opposed single-member voting districts. fhe government sought to use their testimony to show that many members of the black community did not support the plaintiff's voter dilution claim. The district court found that the views expressed by the government's witnesses went to the "desirability of the remedy" and not to the "existence of a condition of vote dilution". On appeal, in its jurisdictional statement, the government argues that the district court erroneously disregarded the "substantial evidence that black leaders were satisfied with black electoral access and opportunity. " I have found three Supreme Court cases which support our argument that even if the district court erroneously disregarded the testimony of the government's black expert witnesses, their testimony is irrelevant in light of the fact that a constitutional guarantee has been violated. In Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1r16, 3 L.Ed 2d-5 rL5 (1958) plaintiffs argued that community opposition, unrest and disorder warfig;ted a delay in integrating the public schools in Little Rock, Arkansas. The Court summarily rejected this contention reasoning that the constitutional rights of the defendant school- children could not give way to resistance by the Arkansas glovernor and other executive officials. Cooper stands for the proposition that individual or community opposition to a proposed court or legistative mandate will not override the vindication of a federal constitutional guarantee. In U.S. v; Sgotland l{eck City Bd. of'9d., 407 U.S. 484t49L, 33 L.Ed.2d 75,81 (L972) the Court held that "white flight"r dD out- ward and obvious denonstration of community opposition to school desegregation, is an invalid justification for disregarding a constitutional mandate to completely uproot a dual school system. In that case, the North Carolina legislature enacted a statute, Chapter 31, authorizing the creation of a new school district which, in effect, created a refuge for white students to avoid desegregation. One of the school board's main arguments in support of Chapter 31 was that it was necessary to avoid "white flight" into private shcools by Scotland Neck residents. Affidavits were introduced into evidence at the district court hearing documenting the degree of "white flight" since the inception of a unitary school p1an. The court was unswayed by this evidence of community resistance; such evidence being analogous to the evidence in our case of black comrnunity opposition to single member districts. Similarly, in-Mo+roe'v.:Bd: o-f Commissignersr 391 U.S. 4501 20 L. Ed. 2d 7 33 t7 39 Ogl2l the court re j ected the school board' s argument that its free transfer p1an, which permitted students to transfer to another school within their attendance zone, was necessary in ord.er to prevent white student's from fleeing the school system. Citing-Brown II, the court stated that "it should go without saying that the vitatity of these constitutional principles cannot be allowed to yield simply because of dis- agreement with them."'Id, at 739 733 ,'BRENDA ". ;8ii*'dttt"T ,r., Petitioners, v BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF JACKSON, TENN., et al. 391 US 450,20 L Ed 2d 733, 88 S Ct 1700 lNo. 7401 Argued April 3, 1968. Decided May 27, 1968. SUMMARY This case, a companion case to Green v County School Board of New Kent County supra, p. 716, and Raney v Board of Education of Gould School District, supra, p. 727, similarly presents the question whether a school board's "free-transfer" plan, which permits a child, after regis- tering in his assigned school in his attendance zone, to freely transfer to another school of his choice if space is available, is adequate to comply with the board's responsibility to effectuate a transition from a racially segregated school system to a racially nondiscriminatory system. The school system in question consisted of eight elementary schools, three junior high schools, and two senior high schools. Under the former state law, five of the elementary schools, two of the junior high schools, and one of the senior high schools were operated as "white" sehools, and the remainder of the schools were operated as "Negro" schools. [n an action by Negro children arising out of the administration of such "free-transfer" plan, the United States District Court for the Western District of Ten- nessee approved the plan in its application to the junior high schools, but not in its application to the elementary schools. (244 F Supp 353.) The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, except on an issue of faculty desegregation, as to which the case was remanded for further proceedings. (380 F2d 955.) On certiorari, the United States Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals insofar as it affirmed the District Court's approval of the plan in its application to the junior high schools, and remanded the case for further proceedings. In an opinion by BnrNNlN, J., expressing the unanimous views of the court, it was held that the "free-transfer" plan was inadequate to comply with the school board's responsibility to effectuate a transition to a racially nondiscriminatory school system, where, 3 school years after such approval by the District Court, the "Negro" tlt. 1' 'i l i $ :. : r ]IONROE v BOARD OF COMIIiSSIONERS 736 3eiG rso' io L Ed 2d ?33' 88 s ct 17oo still almost all white' Inie"' of tne some'cirtumstances-as effectuating a piaht elementary ..tuoi.'^r*re- still transition from a racially segregated "tienaea only b1' Xtg''o-"-t'-"nJitreott'- ttt'oof system to a racially nondis- er five had t'otn u'"'tlw as three "ti*inutotv llt'l?3:-'3f"ffi:l ::XHi Negroes in a student [oii'of 281-to^as fer plan or provlslon many as 160 in " t'ua"""n?Uoay of 682t ttgt"g'tion is the inevitable conse- the board mrtst be "quitta t"o formu- qu"nt-" may stand under the Four- late a nerv pl"n. ond''uil'iiJr'i""i "ir'"t t't*;i imlnamtnt; if it cannot be causes rvhich 'ortu' ";;;'' T'lt -i;;:; ii'"f ='"t' a plan rvill further fashion steps which';;";i'.;";"ai1sti; rrirt.t than delay conversion to a unr- callv to convert promptl;; to. a system t"t'' ' nont"i'i' nondiscriminatory without a "w'hite" 'stlhool and ' *l'tit'ot system' it is unacceptable' :i;;' scrroot, but iust schools' civit Rights S 1.2.5 . relief - racial Civil Rishts s 12.5 _ racial discrim. -.'.ai""?i'oi'."ti,'. in schools ination - "free'tri;ti;;" plan to 4' -fi;;lt"lttv of the principle that desegregate schools ra;i"i;tt;i;in"ation in public educa- 3. while "f""-t-'In-tft'" plans' ti";'it-;;;;t"iit'tiot''t cannot be al- which permit " .t,iij"io"^r'*"tv i;;.- i""ri-i"r"'r"rJ. simply because of dis- fer from his assignla-sctooi to an- ;;;;;;"i rvith such principle' ;;i,.;;;i;;i migi't be varid under .\PPEAR.\NCES OF COUNSEL James M' Nabrit III argued the cause for petitioners' Russell Riee argued the cause for respondents' Louis f' Cf"iUo"'"e argued the cause for the United States' as amicus ."i"t,-Lv special leave of Court' Briefs of Counsel' P 1600' infra' OPINION OF THE COURT *691 us 1521 The respondent. Board of Com- *Mr. Justice #;il" delivered *i..i"r"r.-ry tt-r. School Board for tt.'opinio' Li tr'' court' *""rr:lY.i:r',1'r$::' ff:t:l.itt1"t- This case was arsued with Green i;;;;";;iltid9s -wrt-tr the citv limits' " i;;tv s;r'oor go-"id of Newx-ent iot" o""third-of the citv's popu- countv, 391 us 4;fi0 i na za z-ro' i""ii; ot ao'ooo -are Negroes' the 88 S Ct rOSg, aniil,r*v u Souta "f il;; -r:"rity of whom live in the Education of ths a;;id Scho-ol Dis- iiti" """1"a1 area' The school sv-s- trict, 3e1 us 143'-;d'i -fi 2d 727' ;;;"t,',-. ;ight' elementarv schools' 88 S Ct 169?. f-fi" qu.*tion for de- i1.." Junioi high schools' and two cision is similar i" tt't question de- t"nio'" t'igtt schools' There are cided in those case-s.--ff.i" however, ;;#0 chillren enrolled in the-sys- the principat teaiure of a desegrega- ;eiib ;;h;"ls' about 40% of whom' ii;;;;:which calls in qlttli9,n over 3,200, are Nesroes' l[.'*oJ X','., li,r"Tffitu13::,fl 'L:Til rn 1 e E4 renne ssee bv raw requi red system in compliance with- Erown *tiui"-t"g"g'ti"' in its public v Board or eau'jr1iii, iig'ui zga, ;;;..---AcJordinslv, j*i"r',"Tt?; 99 L Ed 10$, # s"ili 1rg (B-Io-wl tarv - schools' - 1 II)-is not "freedom of choice" but 'Iil"oort' and orte senioi high school a variant commonly referred to as ;;;'A;;'ied as "white" schools' ,.free transrar.,)o''' rererreu uu aD ,ra- tt "a" elementary schools' one rF': t' i ! at ? * L ; f A * I 736 U. S. SUPREME junior high school, and one senior high school were operated as "Negro" schools. Racial segrega- tion extended to all aspects of school Iife including faculties and staffs. '[.39] US {53]*After Brown v Board of Educa_ tion, 347 US 488, 98 L Ed 879,74 S Ct 686, 38 ALR2d 1180 (Brown I), declared such state-imposed dual systems unconstitutional, Tennessee enacted a pupil placement law, Tenn Code S 49-L74L et seq. (1966). That law eontinued previously enrolled pupils in their assigned schools and vested local school boards with the exclusive authority to approve as- signment and transfer requests. No white children enrolled in any "Negro" school under the statutl and the respondent Board granted only seven applications of Negro children to enroll in ..white,, scho6ls, three in 1961 and four in 1962. In March 1962 the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held ttrii ttre pupil placement law was inaclequate "as a plan to convert a biracial sys_ tem into a nonracial one.,, Norih- cross v Board of Education of City of Memphis, 302 F2d 818, g21. In January 1963 petitioners brought this action in the District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The complaint sought a declaratory judgment that respond- ent was operating a compulsory racially segregated school system, injunctive relief against the con- tinued maintenance of that system, an order directing the admission to named "white" schools of the plain- tiff Negro school children, and an order requiring respondent Board to formulate a desegregation plan. The District Court ordered the Board to enroll the children in the schools in question and directed the Board to formulate and file a desegregation plan. A plan was duly filed and, COURT REPORTS 20LEd2d after modifications directed by the court were incorporated, the plan was approved in August 1g68 to be effective immediately in the elemen- tary schools and to be gradually ex- tended over a four-year period to the junior high schools and senior high schools. ZZL F Supp 96g. The modified plan provides for the automatic assignment of pupils liv_ ing within attendance zoneJ drawn by the Board or school officials alongr[39r US ,151] geographic or "natural', *boundaries and_"according to the capacity and facilities of the [school] buiidings ." within the zones. Id., at 974. However, the plan also has the "free-transfer" provision which was ultimately to bring this case to this Court: Any child, after he has complied with the requirement that he register annually in his assigned school in his attendance zone, may freely transfer to another school o1 his choice if space is available, zone residents having priority in cases of overcrowding. Students must pro- vide their own transportation; the school system does not operate school buses. By its terms the "free-transfer" plan was first applied in the elemen- .tary schools. After one year of op- eration petitioners, joined by 27 other Negro school children, moved in September 1964 for further relief in the District Court, alleging re- spondent had administered the plan in a racially discriminatory manner. At that time, the three Negro ele- mentary schools remained all Negro; and 118 Negro pupils were scattered among four of the five formerly all- white elementary schools. After hearing evidence, the District Court found that in two respects the Board had indeed administered the plan in a discriminatorv fashion. First, it had systematically denied Negro children-specifically the 27 intervenors- from their al schools wher in the maj students se Negro schoo been allowed held this to lation, see ( tion, 373 US S Ct 1405, t the terms o: Supp 353, i found that the lines of ance zones three eleme clude Negrr white schor rthose are schools loct at 361-362. In the st Board filed posed zone high schoc the "white' Merry, th school. Ar the three racial ider did have o otherwise The facull spective r gated. Pr proposed : guing firs gerryman to assign "Negro" children t Tigrett s that the adequate on a nol through that the a "feedet [20 L ,; a. *, a:'tt !.i- &$ *T* rt. Er* 5 TIONROE v BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 737 3ei u' {50, 20 L Ed 2d 733' 88 s ct 1?oo intervenors_the,igt,t-totransfermethodofassigningstudentswhere- from their utl-N"grot'j;.;*;;;;;; uv "u"rt junior high school would schools where white;;;;;tr -;.". draw its siuclents from specified ele- in the majority, 'fif'"'gt' white mentary schools' The groupings students seeking tt'"ttttt from could be made so as to assure Negro schools t" *hi;'r;h*t, n"a ru.iuilv integrated.student bodies in been allowea to transler. The court *ri-ir,r." ju"nior high schools, with held this to be a ."..iiirti"""i "i"- au"-r"gu"a for etlucational and ad- lation, see Goss , B;;;d of Educa- minirtirtiue considerations such as tion, BTB US 683, 1;L il ii 6Bi, Sg nriiairg capacity.and proximitv of S Ct 1405, as well ;;;i"'mn ol students to the schools' ir,"i.t t'of the plan itself' 244F rt,r,L^ r\iorrinr ( Supp 353, 359. St""'* tf'e court tll The District Court held that '/ found that the Board, in drawing petitioners had not sustained their the lines of the geographic attend- ailegations that the proposed junior ance zones' h"d'"?;;;*una"t"a high school attendance zones were three elementary sch6ol ztnes to ex- gerrymandered' saying ;ffi; N;;" residential areas from "Tiqrett lwhite] is located in -the white school zones and to include *;;i;; .;;ii;;,'llerrv lNegro] is fthose ,r.;:t'lru?Jf:l of Negro tocatea in the central section and schools located farbher away' Id'' i*ffi [white] is located in the at 861-862. rf,ner a\'v'lr' ru'' ::::Tt"?i'JT};."Jlt. i,111i, XJI- In the same 1g64 proceeding the ltu,v,-l,ocate the western section Board filed with the court its pro- to- tigr"tt' the central section to posed zones for ';i',""";h;;" junior ilit"v] "'u.fl'f, ilt'r?1l "uttt:l.to [i;h ..h";ls, Jackson and Tigrett' *Jackson. irr" L"rraaries follow ih;':{hit"" junior high schoolt'.1n9 ;;;;i;".tt ot tigr,*avs and rail- irritv,---it. "Negro"- junjor, hiql ;;;[. According- to ihe school school. As of the 1964 school year p"irfrti". maps, there are a con- th;-l;";;- schools retained their lia'"our" number oi N"g.o pupils in racial identities, although Jackson iii"- .ouif,"r-n part of the Tigrett aia tra"e one Nesro child among its ;;;.;-;-- ;onsiherable number of "if,."*i.. all-white student bodv' ;hl; pupils in the middle and The faculties and staffs of the re- ;;;th.;-;""t. ot the Merrv zone' spective schools were also segre- ""J" .rnr'iderable number of Negro gated. Petitioners objected to the "rri[-ir- fhe southern part o{ !lt" proposed zones on two gtounds' ar- i;;k;;--r";". The location of the suing first that they were- racially iili"""-."f,o"t. in an approximate s*ri*rrraered because so drawn as east-west line makes it inevitable to assigxr Negro children to the it ri it " three zones divide the city "Negro" Merry -str'oot and white il th;;; parts from north to south' children to the "*iii";'r"kson 'nd while it appears that pro-ximity of Tigrett schools, " u'J ttt"*atively pupirt and -natural boundaries are that the pt'n *"t*ii anv-event in- ;;; ;t important in zoning for adequate to reorganize the system .iuniot-ttigf" as in zoning for ele- on a nonr"iur 'f,"it' Petitioners' mentary ichools"it does not appear through "*p""t"?ir""-."t, u"gto ;h"t" N;;" pupils will be discrim' that the Board be required to adopt ;;;;; u'g'intt'1' 244 F Supp' at a "feeder system," a commonly used 362' [ 20 L Ed 2Al-47 U. S. SUPRE}IE COURT REPORTS738 U. S. SUPRE}IT] As for the recommended "feeder system," the District Court con- cluded simply that "there is no con- stitutional requirement that this particular system be adopted." Ibid. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed except on an issue of faculty desegregation, as to which the case was remanded for further proceedings. 380 F2d 955. We granted certiorari, 389 US 1033, 19 L Ed 2d 821,88 S Ct 771 and set the case for oral argument im- mediately follorving Green v County School Board, supra. Although the case presented brr the petition for certiorari concerns only the junior high schools, the plan in its applica- tion to elementary and senior high schools is also necessarily impli- cated since the right of "free trans- fer" extends to pupils at all levels. t2l The principles governing de- termination of the adequacy of the plan as compliance with the Board's responsibility to effectuate a transi- tion to a racially nondiscriminatory system are those announced today in Green v County School Board, su- .t39r us tsTl pra. Tested by those *principles the plan is clearly inadequate. Three school years have followed the Dis- trict Court's approval of the attend- ance zones for the junior high schools. Yet Merry Junior High School was still completely a "Negro" school in the 1967-1968 school year, enrolling some 640 Negro pupils, or over 80% of the system's Negro junior high school students. Not one of the "consid- erable number of white pupils in the middle and northern Parts of the Merry zone" assigned there un- der the attendance zone aspect of the plan chose to stay at MerrY. Every one exercised his option to transfer out of the "Negro" school. The "white" Tigrett school seem- OURT REPORTS 20 L Ed 2d ingly had the same experience in reverse. Of the "considerable num- ber of Negro pupils in the southern part of the Tigrett zone" rqentioned Ly the Districi Court, only ieven are enrolled in the student body of 819 ; apparently all other Negro children assigned to Tigrett chose to go else- where. Only the "white" Jackson school presents a different picture; there, 349 rvhite children and 135 Negro children compose the student body. How many of the Negro chil- dren transferred in from the "rvhite" Tigrett school does not ap- pear. The experience in the junior high schools mirrors that of the ele- mentary schools. Thus the three elementary schools that were op- erated as Negro schools in 1954 and continued as such until 1963 are still attended only by Negroes. The five "white" schools all have some Negro children enrolled, from as few as three (in a student body of 781) to as many as 160 (in a student bodY of 682). This experience with "free trang- fer" was accurately predicted by the District Court as early as 1963: "In terms of numbers the ratio of Negro to white pupils is ap- proximately 40-60. This figure is' horvever, somev'hat misleading as a measure of the extent to which in' 't391 us .1581 tegration will actually occur *under the proposed plan. Because the homes of Negro children are con- centrated in certain areas of the city, a plan of unitary zoning, even if prepared without consideration oI race, will result in a concentration of Negro children in the zones of heretofore'Negro' schools and white children in the zones of heretofore 'white' schools. Moreoaer, this tentlettcy of concentration in schools u',ill b; f urther accentttated Ay th,e errr"ise of choice of schools t20 L Ed 2dl I I i t t t E ilI . ." 221F phasis suPPlied. PlainlY, the I resPondent's "a take whatever s' sary to convert in which racial t be eliminated Green v Count; pra, at 437-438, Only by dism imposed dual s be achieved. I end has not bee does the plan a1 courts for the promise meani ward doing so. ther the dismr system, the [" has operated si dren and their sponsibility wh squarely on 1 Green v Count pra, at 441442 That the Boarc a mtthod achie tion of the ol from its long effort whatsor and the delibe manner in whi istered the plar District Court t3, at The proved the attendance-zon that as drawr dents to the t that was capal ing'ful desegr schools. But.[: option has *p erable numbe students in zones to retu. vitation of tt fortable secur lished discrim Sr MONROE v BOARD 391 us 450, 20 L Ed . ." 221F SuPP, at 971. (Em- phasis supplied.) Plainly, the Plan does not meet respondent's "affirmative dutY to takl whatever steps might be neces- sary to convert to a unitary sYstem in which racial discrimination would be eliminated root and branch.'' Green v CountY School Board, su- pra, at 437438,20 L Ed 2d at 723' bnly by dismantling the state- imposed- dual sYstem'can that end be achieved. And manifestlY, that end has not been achieved here nor does the plan aPProved bY the lower courts for ttre junior high schools promise meaningful Progress -to- ward doing so. "Rather than fur- ther the dismantling of the dual system, the f"free transfer"] PIan has operated simply to burden chil- ' dren and their Parents with a re- sponsibility which Brown II placed squarely on the School Board." Green v County School Board, su- pra, at 441442,20 L Ed 2d at 726. That the Board has chosen to adoPt a m6thod achieving minimal disrup- tion of the old pattern is evident from its long delay in making anY effort whatsoever to desegregate, and the deliberately discriminatory manner in which the Board admin- istered the plan until checked by the District Court. t3, rl The District Court aP- Proved the junior high school attendance-zone lines in the view that as drawn they assigned stu- dents to the three schools in a waY that was capable of producing mean- insful desegregation of all three schools. gut the "free-transfer" '[391 Lis l59l option has *permitted the "consid- erable number" of white or Negro students in at least two of the zones to return, at the implicit in- vitation of the Board, to the com- fortable securitv of the old, estab. lished discriminatory pattern. Like OF COMMISSIONERS 2d ?33, 88 S Cb 1?00 739 the transfer provisions held invalid in Goss v Board of Education, 373 us 683, 686, 10 L Ed 2d 632, 635' 83 S Ct 1405, "[i]t is readilY aP- parent that the transfer [provision] iends itself to perpetuation of segre- g:ation." While we there indicated thrt "free-transfer" Plans under some circumstances might be valid, we explicitly stated that "no official transfLr plan or provision of which racial segregation is the inevitable consequence may stand under the Fourteenth Amendment'" Id., at 689, 10 L Ed 2d at 636. So it is here; no attemPt has been made to justify the transfer provision as a device designed to meet "legiti- mate local Problems," ibid.; rather it patently oPerates as a device to allow resegregation of the races to the extent desegregation would be achieved by geographicallY drawn zones. ResPondent's argument in this Court reveals its PurPose. We are frankly told in the Brief that without the transfer oPtion it is apprehended that white students wiit flee the school sYstem alto- gether. "But it should go without saying that the vitality of these con- stitutional prineiples cannot be al- il;;; t; vlera Jimplv because of i disagreement with them." Brown i tt, ai goo, 99 L Ed at 1106. -) We do not hold that "free trans- fer" can have no place in a desegre- gation plan. But like "freedom of choice," if it cannot be shown that such a plan will further rather than delay conversion to a unitary' non- racial, nondiscriminatorY school system, it must be held unaccePt- able. See Green v CountY School Board, supra, at 439-441, 20 L Ed 2d at 724-726. t2I We conclude, therefore, that the Board "must be required to formulate a new Plan and, in light of other courses which appear open 740 to the Board, fashion steps which promise realistically to con-rt39l us 4601 vert promptly to a rsystem without a'white' school and a'Negro' school, but just schools." Id., at 442,20 L Ed 2d at 726.t The judgment of the Court of Ap- peals is vacated insofar as it af- U. S. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 20LEd2d firmed the District Court's approval of the plan in its application to the junior high schools, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion and with our opinion in Green v County School Board, supra. It is so ordered. f We imply no agreement with the Dis- trict Court's conclusion that under the pro- posed attendance zones for junior high sehools "it does not appear that Negro pupils will be discriminated against.'l We note also that on the record as it now stands, it appears that petitioners' recom- mended "feeder system," the feasibility of which respondent did not challenge in the District Court, is an effective alternative reasonably available to respondent to abol- ish the dual system in the junior high schools. 39 Defendant war magazines to a n repealed, which the lust of mino ferences betweer Term of the Ner On appeal, th per curiam opin it was held that DoucLAs, J., even obscene m freedom of spee HARLAN, J., (1) the majorit ute than the cou in this area of act to strike do already been re 75 t407 us r84l UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v SCOTLAND NECK CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION (No. 70-130) et al. PATTIE BLACK COTTON et al., Petitioners, v SCOTLAND NECK CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al. (No. 70-187) 407 US 484,33 L Ed 2d 75,92 S Ct 2214 [Nos. 70-130 and 70-187] Argued February 29 and March l, 1972. Decided June 22, t972. SUMMARY After the United States Department of Justice had obtained an agree- ment whereby a county school board undertook to desegregate a dual, racially segregated county school district consisting of. 22 percent white students and77 percent Negro students, and after the state department of public instruction, acting on a request from the county school board, had recommended a detailed desegregation plan, the North Carolina state legislature enacted a statute authorizing a city within the county to create a separate school district. About 57 percent of the students in the city's public schools were white, and about 43 percent were Negro, and if the city had its own school district, a formerly all-white school in the city would retain a white majority, while a formerly all-Negro school just outside the city would be 91 percent Negro. In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, the United States sought injunctive relief against the establishment of a separate school district for the city. The District Court granted an injunction, holding that the state statute was enacted with the effect of creating a refuge for white students, and that the statute interfered with the desegregation of the county school system (314 F Supp 65). The United States Court of Ap- peals for the Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that the effect of the separa- tion of the city's schools and students on the desegregation of the remainder of the county was minimal and insufficient to invalidate the state statute (442 Fzd 576). Briefs of Counsel, p779, infra. 78 U. S. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 33LEd2d Burger, C. J., filed an opinion concur- py9llt11d Rehnquist, JJ., joined post,ring in the result, in whlch Si".L*rn, p +of, eS L Ed 2d p g1. APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL Lawrence G. rvarace argued the cause for petitioner in No.70-130. Adam stein argued the cause for petitioners in No. T0-1g2.William T. Joyner and C. Kitchin Joeey ".g*a-if," cause forrespondents in both cases. Briefs of Counsel, p 77g, infra. UNITED city limits o approval by : voters.r Th, March 3, 19 the 1969 Se Carolina. Tl Neck approvr t trict in a reft and the new steps towarc school systet The effect carve out of trict a new r of whom 399 2s6 (43%\ transfer plat appointed Sc of Educatio white and 1 side the city fer into the while 44 stt plied to tran tem to a ne: fax County district plan of the forrr Neck High building loc limits that the eounty. The Unitt suit in June and county t gation of th 1. An earlie the 1966 sessi would have cr trict for Scotl rounding towr to-one Negro plated that th under a freed that existing The bill wac r 2. The vote to 332 in favr Ol Scotland voteru, 360 trr 3. After th, OPINION OF t{07 us 4851 Mr. Justice Stewart delivered the opinion of the Court. The petitioners in these con- solidated caseg challenge the imple- mentation of a North Carolina siat_ute authorizing the creation of a n-ew- school district for Scoiland Neck, a city which at the time oi the statute's enactment was part of a larger school distriet then'in the process of dismanfling a dual school system. In a judgment entered the same day as its judgment in Councilor Urty of Emporia v Wright, 442 Fzd 570, a decision which-we Jev:rjse^ today, 402 US p 4b1, BB : rrg z-d .p Et, 92 S Ct 2196, the Cgurt of Appeals held that the Dis_ trict..Court erred in .n:oinirrg tf,1 creation of the new school disirict. Scotland Neck is a community of about 3,000 persons, located in the southeastern portion of Halifax County, North Carolina. Since 1g86, the city has been a part of the Hali- fax County Adminiitrative Unit, a school district eomprising the entire county with the exception of two towns located in the northern sec_tion. In the 1968-1969 school year, 10,655 students attended schois inthis system, of whom 77Tc *."" Negro, 22% white, and lTo Amer_ ican Indian. The schools of Halifax County wer-9 completely segregated by race until 1965. In that year, the school board adopted a freedom_of-choice THE COURT plan that produced very t,107 us 4861 desegregation. In rn" "lSt ii'rH school year, all of the white students in the county attended the four tra- {itlgnatly all-white schoots, whiie 97% of. the Negro students aitendedth-e L4 traditionally all-Neero schools. The school-busing .v.iJ*, used by 90% of. the studenti, was segregated- by race, and faculty desegregation was minimal. _ In 1968, the United States Department of Justice "nte""a irrionegotiations with the HalifaxCounty School Board to b;i;;the county's school system l"i; compliance with federai law. An agreement was reached wherebythe school board undertook 6provide some desegregation in thefall of 1968, and to effect a com_ pletely unitary system in the 1969_ 1970 school year. The State Depart_ ment of Public Instruction, ,ctirg on a request from the county board, recommended a detailed plan (the Interim -Plan) for thg uniiary system that would have put somlwhite students in every school in the county, and that *orta have lefi a white majority in only one school. In January 19Gg, after the Interim Plan had been submitted to the county school board but before any action had been taken upon it, a biil was introduced in the state legisla_ ture to authorize the creation of a new school district bounded by the UNITEDSTATESvSCoTLANDNECKCITYBD'oFED.79 {0? us {8{, 33 L Ed 2d 75, 92 S ct 2214 citylimitsofScotlandNeck,upontyschools.sThecomplaintasked ,pir"t"i uv ; -r:oritv "] th; ciiv's for preliminarv and. permanent in- ;;;;i tn" Uitj was enacted on junctions against the implementa- March 3, 1909, u...Ctupt.. 31 o-f iion of Chapter 31. Various Negro the 1g6g Session f,o*.'of Xortfr children, parents, and teachers, the C'".rfi.". The citizens of Scotland petitioners in No' 70-187 ' were per- x".t ,ppr"ved the new school mitted to intervene as plaintiffs' t407 us 4871 dis- After a three-day hearing before trict in a referendum a month tater,t two district judges on both this case andthenewdistrictbegantakingandasimilarcaseinvolvingtwo steps toward beginning "a separate newly created school districts in ..i,Lr -;t.d i. *,.'i',ri "i-ie-6e.- ts::tH:t:f,"rY,1",i,i11,,?i,i""Y;",lli The effect of Chapter 31- was.to the implementation of Chapter 31, carve out of the Halifax schoo-l dis- finding that "the Act in its appli- trict a new unit with 695 students' cation creates a refuge for white of whom ggg (57%') were whlte and students, and promotes segregated iia t+g%) were Negry' .-under,a schools in Halifax couniy,"- and transfer plan deviseg !v j|t" ::Y-i{ further that,,[t]he Act impedes and appointed Scotland-Neck L.ity lJoard Cefeats the Halifax County Board of oI'Pau.rtio", 360 students (350 : *r,it" and 10' N.g.oi-i*iqi"g ",1- f,}ltjl .JilT,r'#::H#,1:t",1; fer into the Scotland Neck schools, the public schools in Halifax County while 44 students "O'! IT;gro) ap' by the opening of the school vear plied to transfer out of the city sy,s- 1969-70'"{ After further hearings' tem to a nearby ..t *t i" tf,e ffiti- t407 us 4881 fax County system. The new the District Court on May 23' 1970' district planned to use the facilities found Chapter 31 unconstitutional of the formerly att-wfrite Scotland and permanently enjoined its en- Neck High School, including one forcement' 314 F Supp 65' The building located outside the city court of Appeals reversed, 442 F2d' limits that would be leased from 575' and we granted certiorari' 404 the county Us 821, 30 L Ed 2d' 49,92 S Ct 4?. The United States filed this law- suit in June 1969 against both citY and eounty officials, seeking desegre- gation of the existing Halifax Coun- tl-31 The Court of APPeals did not believe that the seParation of Scotland Neck from the Halifax County system should be viewed as 1. An earlier bill had been introduced in the 1966 session of the legislature, which would have created a separate school dis- trict for Scotland Neck and the four sur- rounding townships, an area with a three- to-one Neglo majority' It was contem- plated that the new district would operate under a freedom-of-choice plan similar to that existing in the county at the time' The bill wasr defeated in the State Senate' 2. The vote in the referendum was 813 to 332 in favor of the new school district' Ol Scotland Neck's 1,382 registered voten, 360 were Ne8ro. 3. After the preliminary injunction was issued in this case, the District Court dis- missed the Ilalifax County Board of Edu- cation from that part of the case dealing with Scotland Neck's efrorts to implement a separate school sYstem' On MaY 19, iSzo, tlr. court ordered the county-school board to implement, beginning in the fall of 19?0, the-Interim Plan proposed by the State Department ol Public Instruction, with certain modifications proposed by the school board. 4. The opinion ol the District Court on the issuance of the preliminary injunction is unreported. 80 U. S. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 33LEd2d an alternative plan for desegregating !h" county system, because th; "severance was not part of a aeseg_ lesation plan proposed by the scho6l board but was instead an action bv the Legislature redefining the founa"_ aries of local governmental units.,, 442Fzd, at E8B. This suggests that an action of a state Iegislalure affect_ ing tt " de,qegls*.1ion of a dual sys_tem stands on a footing ditrerent from an action of a sch'ool b;a;d. But in North Carolina Board of ear_ 91tr,on v Swann, 402 US 48, Zg t Ed 2_d 586, 91 S Ct 12g4, decided aftei the-decision of the Court "t epp""i. in this case, we held that ,,if ;;;;;;: imposed Iimitation on a school au_ -t|-o-Iity'r discretion operates to in_hibit or obstruct the dis_ establishing of a dual school system,it mus-t falt; state policy ;di;t;; way when it operatei to hinder ui-nJi_ cation of federal constitutionrt gur"_ 311"".:_ Id., at 45, Zg L ea IJ at589. _The fact that ttr" .r"rtio, Jithe Scofland Neck school- ai-iir.iwas authorized by a special act oitne state legislature t407 US 489I the schoot board ," .i#1"Jr*?L,:l thus has no constitrti";; ;lc"ifi: cance. [4, t] 1rys have today held that any attempt by state or local officialsto carve out a new school clistrici from an existing district that-is i;the process of dismantling a dual school system .,must be jutgea-ac- c-ording to whether it hind-erslr fur_ thers the Drocess of school d.*;;_sation. If the proposal would imoede the dismaniting of , J;;i system, then a district court, in the exercise of its rbmedial discretion, may enjoin it from being carriedort." Wright v Council o1 City oi Emporia, supra, at 460, gS L Ud ZJ at 60. The District Court in this case concluded that Chapter Bl ,,was en- acted with the effect of creating a refuge for white students of the Halifax County School system, anJ interferes with the desegiegation oithe Halifax County School sys_tem . .,, 814 F Supp, atiA. The Court of Appeals, however, did not regard the separation of Scot- land Neck as creating " ".trg. fo" white students seeking to escfre aL- segregation, and it held that ,,the 9ffect of the separation of the Scoi- land Neck schools ana students onthe desegregation of the ,"rnrina"iat the Halifax County ,y.t.rn-is minimal and insufficient to invatiaaie Chapter 81.,, 442 FZd at OAZ. Oui review of the record leads us to con- clude that the District Couri. ieilr_ mination was the only proper i;i;;- ence to be drawn from the facts ofthis case, and we ttru, ".u"r." ii"judgment of the Court "i A;;.;i;: T!9 major impact of Chapter Bl would fall on the southeastern por- tion of Halifax County, designated as District I in the Interim pLn for Slitary schools proposed by the State Department of public Instruc_tion. The projected enrollment in the schools of this district under the Interim PIan was 2,94g students, oi whom 78/o werc Negro. If Chan_ ter 31 were implemented, the Scoi_ land Neck schools would be 57/o t407 us 4901 white, while the schools remainingin District I would be gg/" N.;;;: The traditional racial identities- ofthe schools in the area would be maintained; the formerly all_white Scotland Neck school would ,.trin "l:lrit" majority,_while the for*.ify atl-Negro Brawley school, a higir scnoot tocated just outside Scofland Neck, would be gl % Negro. [6, 7I In Swann v Charlotte- Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 US L,2g L Ed 2d 654, 91 S C[ 1267, we said that district judges or UNITED school autho every effort t possible degrt tion," and tha to remedy sta regation therr tion against stantially dis racial compos LEd2datS today in Writ Emporia, sup at 62, that achieved by s system opera 'Negro schoo tems, each op within its bor two new syst and the othe tsl In this ity in the ra, Scotland Nt schools remai Halifax Cou "substantial'' measuremenl response am( side Scotlan board's proP, firmed what the Scotlanc be the "whi' while the ot would remi Mr. Chief whom Mr. Justice Pov Rehnquist j result. I agree thr rate school s would tend t 5- The figurr Appeals were r mitted to this C [33 L Ed 2dl-{ UNITED STATES V SCOTLAND NECK CITY BD. OF ED' 81 107 us 484, 33 L Ed 2d 75' 92 S ct 2214 schoolauthorities..shouldmakeGiventhesefacts'wecannotbut everyefforttoachievethegreatestconctudethattheimplementationof oossible degree "t u"iu'i'LJ"gt"g'- Chapter :31 ryoul{ have the effect il#l;#'r.'hJi.^t"rt"rrrting a plan oi impeains the disestablishment of toremedystate-enforcedschoolseg-tt,.au^tschoolsystemthatexisted rlJi'ii"t ih"* strould be "a presump- in Halifax Countv' Hl,;1il":1d:l;:lit"t#,t" 1l',;11; , t8r rhe primarv argument made racial composition."""if, ]'u'" 2;,';i bv the ttto?i$"t'*t rtJl, L pa za ai slz. And we have said support of today in Wright v Council-otC:ty:{ Chapter 31 is that the separation of Emporia. supra, at 463, 33 L Ed 2d itu "i.otfuna Neck schools from at 62, that "desegregation ls .nor those of Halifax County was neces- achievecl by splitting a sinsle school ;;;;1;;rrid "white flight" bv Scot- system operoting.'white schools' and i".i -N".f. residents into private ,Ttr:ffi';;5r","X?J#,X,l,"[1fi Xm:,ffi'#ltli:]i:J:il'$:: ;tf **:}.",:ff ''Iir;;T';"1[: ;;;' -' sffirementar affi davits were and the other is, in fact, ,Negro., ,' rrrrniti.d'to th. court of Appeals ao.o..nting the degree to which t5l In this litigation' the dispar- ir't tvttt*las undergone a loss of itv in the racial tornpoliiio" 9f ll't ti'auntt since the unitary school ilJ";iil;' NJJI t"iii"rt and the oiun toor' effect -in the fall of 1e70'6 ;;;;;i;;.*aining in District I of the sitt *t'itt this development mav be Halifax county system would be cause for deep concern to the re- ' ,,substantial" by "iry .trnaard of spontients, i!--e?I,qqt, as the Cgurj of fl ;;;t;t;t"nt' And tire enthusiastic Appeals reciignized' be accepted- as response among whites residing out- u tuuto" for achieving anything less .iJ|-i."tf"nd -Nect< to the school tf,r, ."-;fete uprooting oi the dual [""ra;. froposed transfer plan con- public school system. See Monroe nit "J *r,it the figures suggest: I-.goota <if-fffimissioners' 391 us ite- stotrund Neck school was to 450' 459'20 L Ed 2d ?33' 739' 88 s ct be the "white school" of the area' 1700' while the other District I schools would remain "Negro schools'" Reversed' SEPARATE OPINION Mr. Chief Justice Burger, with whom Mr. Justice Blackmun, Mr' Justice Powell, and Mr' Justice Rehnquist join, concurring in the result. I agree that the creation of a sePa- rate school system in Scotland Neck would tend to undermine desegrega- tion efforts in Halifax CountY, and i tf,r. join in the result reached bY tf," Coutt. However, since I dis- ."nt"a from the Court's decision in W"igftt v Council of CitY J! E-t- porii, 407 us, p 471,33 L Ed 2d P 'OO, t'feel constrained to set forth Uri"nv the reasons why I distinguish the cases. 5. The figures supplied to the Court of lpp."i. *"-"e updated by an affidavit. sub- miltea to this Court, showing the total en- [33 L Ed 2dl{ rollment in the Halifax County schoolg at H;';A"t ot ttt" lg?r-1972 school vear-to ii""" U*" S,Ogl, of whom 1474 were white' 82 U. S. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 33LEd2d First, the operation of a separate school system in Scotland Neck would preclude meaningful desegre- gation in the southeastern portion of Halifax County. If Scotland Neck were permitted to operate separate schools, more than 2,200 of the nearly 3,000 students in this sector would attend virtually all-Negro schools located just t1o7 us n"o'ur.ro" of the corporate limits of Scotland Neck. The schools located within Scotland Neck would be predominantly white. Further shifts could reasonably be anticipated. In a very real sense, the children residing in this rel- atively small area would continue to attend "Negro schools" and "white schools." The effect of the with- drawal would thus be dramatically different from the effect which could be anticipated in Emporia. Second, Scotland Neck's action cannot be seen as the fulfillment of its destiny as an independent govern- mental entity. Scotland Neck had been a frart of the county-wide school system for many years; special leg- islation had to be pushed through the North Carolina General As- sembly to enable Scotland Neck to operate its own school system. The movement toward the creation of a separate school system in Scotland Neck was prompted solely by the likelihood of desegregation in the county, not by any change in the political status of the municipality. Scotland Neck was and is a part of Halifax County. The city of Em- poria, by contrast, is totally inde- pendent from Greensville County; Emporia's only ties to the county are contractual. When Emporia be- came a city, a status derived pursu- ant to longstanding statutory pro- cedures, it took on the legal responsi- bility of providing for the education of its children and was no longer en- titled to avail itself of the county school facilities. Third, the District Court found, and it is undisputed, that the Scot- land Neck severance was substan- tially motivated by the desire to create a predominantly white system more acceptable to the white parents of Scotland Neck. In other words, the new system was designed to minimize the number of Negro chil- dren attending school with the white children residing in Scotland Neck. No similar finding was made by the District Court in Emporia, and the record shows that Emporia's deci- sion was not based on the projected racial composition of the proposed new system. A A state pr Court of Ap in the Unitr alleging for from the gr had convicte States Cour' because the unconstituti F2d 370). On certio: Although nt that the prir systematic , oner's allegr conviction t Mlnsnnr joined by I his race, a system on' from grand of law, it r bias. WHtts, J ment, stati provides tt or state gr central con t33 L Ed 2dl Briefs o