Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae and Brief for National Suburban League
Public Court Documents
February 19, 1974

48 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Milliken Hardbacks. Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae and Brief for National Suburban League, 1974. 9373745d-54e9-ef11-a730-7c1e5247dfc0. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/3e85a2d1-7285-471f-b9fb-cd7182602433/motion-for-leave-to-file-brief-amicus-curiae-and-brief-for-national-suburban-league. Accessed June 13, 2025.
Copied!
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITEO STATES January T e r m , 1974 _______ N o. 7 3 -4 3 4 _______ R O N A LD B R A D L E Y , et a l. , P e t it io n e rs , v s . W ILL IA M G . M ILLIK E N , et a l. , R esp on d en ts . ON A P P E A L FR O M THE SIXTH CIRCU IT CO U RT O F A P P E A L S M OTION FOR L E A V E TO F IL E B R IE F AM ICUS CU RIAE AND B R IE F O F N A TIO N A L SUBURBAN LE A G U E , L T D ., AM ICUS C U R IA E , IN SU PPO R T O F PE TITIO N E R S H AROLD H. FUHRM AN 4455 W est B ra d le y Road M ilw aukee, W iscon s in 53223 A ttorney fo r A m icu s C u riae N ational Suburban L ea gu e , Ltd. F e b ru a ry 19, 1974 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES January T e r m , 1974 No. 7 3 -4 3 4 RO N ALD B R A D L E Y , et a l. , v s . P e t it io n e rs , W IL L IA M G. M ILLIK E N , et a l. , R esp on d en ts . ON A P P E A L FRO M THE SIXTH CIRCU IT CO U RT OF A P P E A L S M OTION FO R L E A V E TO FIL E B R IE F AM ICUS CURIAE AND B R IE F FOR N A TIO N A L SUBURBAN LE A G U E , L T D ., AS AM ICUS CURIAE TO : THE SU PREM E CO U RT O F THE UNITED ST A T E S . H ARO LD H. FUHRM AN r e s p e c t fu lly m oves fo r an o rd e r granting lea v e to file a b r ie f am icu s cu r ia e in the a b o v e -e n tit le d ca s e pursuant to R ule 42 o f the R e v ise d R u les o f this C ou rt. C on sen t o f the p e tit ion ers and respon den ts has been re fu se d . 1. M ovant's in te re s t in the ca s e is : the N a tion al Suburban L eague, Ltd. , is a n o n -p ro fit c o rp o ra t io n ded ica ted to the autonom y o f suburban m u n ic ip a lit ie s and th eir con stitu en ts . If the ru ling b e low is upheld , a s e r io u s b low w ill be d ea lt to lo c a l h om e ru le and s e lf -g o v e rn m e n t . The b ou n d a r ie s o f the s c h o o l d is t r ic t s in v o lv ed a re co te rm in u s w ith the b ou n d a ries o f the re la ted m u n ic ip a lit ie s . The autonom y o f the p eop le o f the suburban m u n ic i p a litie s w ou ld be in fr in g ed in v io la tio n o f the 10th A m endm ent to the F e d e ra l C on stitu tion . 2. The M ovant w ill b r ie f the fo llow in g is s u e s : I. W hether the o rd e r o f the D is t r ic t C ou rt, a ff irm e d in part b y the Sixth C ir cu it C ou rt o f A p p ea ls , is a p ro p e r e x e r c is e o f its ju d ic ia l au th ority? II. W hether such an o rd e r is a p p rop r ia te ly d ir e c te d at the defendants in this ca u s e ? III. W hether, absen t a show ing o f de ju re se g re g a tio n , qua lita tive and quantitative equality in edu cation w ill be m andated? 3. A m icu s cu r ia e w ill b en e fit the C ou rt b y explain ing fou r a re a s o f law w h ich , to its k n ow l ed ge , w ill not be o th erw ise d isp o se d o f in other b r ie fs . The f ir s t a rea o f law is that the p r o b le m at is s u e is not one w h ich m ay be d e term in ed b y the ju d ic ia ry when a le g is la t iv e re m e d y is p o s s ib le . The secon d a rea o f law is that as such s c h o o l d i s tr ic ts a re not m ade an autom atic a rm o f the state ce r ta in ly no co u r t m ay so m ake them . The th ird a rea o f law is that no de ju re d is cr im in a tio n has been shown. A bsen t such a show ing the co u r t has n ev er ru led in fa v or o f estab lish in g actua l equality as a ru le o f law . No co n s c io u s ba lan cin g o f e ith er quantitative or qua lita tive equa lity has been a t tem pted by the C ou rt. The fourth a rea o f law is the re s e rv a t io n o f righ ts to the states and the p eop le under the Tenth A m endm ent. This A m endm ent to the F e d e ra l C onstitu tion is the co r n e rs to n e o f lo c a l autonom y fo r states and m u n icip a lities w h ich m u st be a ck n ow ledged and re v ita liz e d . Thus am icu s cu r ia e w ill be o f substantia l aid in a d eterm in ation o f the c a s e at law . D ated F eb ru a ry 19, 1974. / s / H arold H. Fuhrm an_____________ H arold H. Fuhrm an 4455 W est B ra d ley R oad M ilw aukee, W isco n s in , 53223 A ttorn ey fo r A m icu s C u ria e , N ational Suburban L eague, Ltd. - ■. . . . . . ; ' ; :■ . •. . ■ . ' ■ - ■ . ■ * .. . 1 T A B L E OF CO N TEN TS P a g e T able o f A u th o r it ie s ................................................... ii In tro d u c t io n --In te re s t o f A m icu s C u r i a e ................................................................................. 1 Q u estion s P r e s e n t e d ...................................................... 3 Statem ent o f the C a s e ................................................... 4 A r g u m e n t : ............................................................................ 4 I. THE ORDER OF THE D ISTRICT CO U RT IS NOT A P R O P E R E X E R CISE OF ITS JU D ICIAL A U T H O R IT Y .......................4 A . TH A T PO RTIO N OF THE ORDER DEALIN G WITH IN T E R -D IS T R IC T BUSSING IS A DEROGATIO N OF THE C O N STITU TIO N AL P R IN C IP L E OF SE PA R A TIO N OF PO W ERS, IN TH A T IT IS A JU D ICIAL EN CRO ACH M EN T ON A L E G ISLA T IV E F U N C T IO N ................. 4 B . THE ISSUE OF IN T E R -D IS T R IC T BUSSING IS A N O N -JU STIC IA B LE P O L IT IC A L Q U E S T IO N .......................................... 8 11 II. P a g e THE ORDER OF THE D ISTR IC T CO U RT IS IN A P P R O P R IA T E IN TH A T IT IS D IR E C T E D A T P A R T IE S WHO ARE W ITH OUT THE A U TH O R ITY T O C O M P L Y WITH THE O R D E R ................................................. 17 III. ABSEN T A SHOWING OF DE JURE SE G R E G A T IO N - -E R R O N E O U SLY FOUND BY THE SIXTH CIRCU IT CO U RT OF A P P E A L S --T H IS CO U RT W IL L NOT R E -B A L A N C E THE RIGHTS OF P A R T IE S T O ACH IEVE E ITH E R A Q U A N T IT A T IV E OR A Q U A L IT A T IV E E Q U A L IT Y ............................................................................ 18 C o n c lu s io n ............................................................................ 32 T A B L E OF AU TH O RITIES C a ses (F ed era l) B aker v . C a rr 369 U .S . 186 (1 9 6 2 ) ........................................................ 13 B ra d ley v . M illik en 484 F . 2d 215 (6th C ir . 1973)____ 4, 17, 20, 23, 25 B ra d ley v . S ch oo l B oa rd o f the C ity o f R ich m on d 462 F . 2d 1058 (4th C ir . 1972)................. 16, 17, 18 B row n v . B oa rd o f E ducation 347 U .S . 483 (1954) ............... 18, 22 C o le g r o v e v . G reen 328 U .S . 549 (1 9 4 6 ) ............................................ 11, 12 D andridge v . W illiam s 397 U .S . 471 (1 9 7 0 )........................................................ 18 D eal v . C incinnati B oa rd o f E ducation 369 F . 2d 55 (6th C ir . 1 9 6 6 ) ........................... 21, 31 D ea l v , C incinnati B oa rd o f E ducation 419 F . 2d 1387 (6th C ir . 1 9 6 9 ). . . ......................... 21 D e tro it E d ison C o . v . E ast China Tow nship S ch ool D is t r ic t N o. 3 247 F .S u p p . 296 (E . D . M ich . 1 9 6 5 ) ...................... 9 D etro it E d ison C o . v . E ast China T ow nsh ip S ch ool D is t r ic t No. 3 378 F . 2d 225 (6th C ir . 1 9 6 7 ) ..................................... 9 G om illion v . L igh tfoot 364 U .S . 339 ( I 9 6 0 ) ............................................ 12, 13 Hunter v . C ity o f P ittsburgh 207 U .S . 161 (1 9 0 7 )........................................................ 9 H unter v . E r ick so n 393 U .S . 385 (1 9 6 9 )............................................ 19, 25 I l l P a g e Jam es v . V a lt ie rra 402 U .S . 137 (1970) 27, 28, 29 I V K eyes v . S ch oo l D is t r ic t N o. 1, D en v er , C o lo . 413 U .S . 189 (1 9 7 2 ) .................................................... 21 Knapp v . S ch w eitzer 357 U .S . 371 (1 9 5 8 ) ..................................................... 32 L in d sey v . N orm et 405 U .S . 56 (1 9 7 2 ) ....................................................... 28 New O rleans W a terw ork s C o . v . New O rleans 164 U .S . 471 (1 8 9 6 )....................................... .............. 32 R eitm an v . M ulkey 387 U .S . 369 (1 9 6 7 ) ............................................ 25, 27 R eyn olds v . S im s 377 U .S . 533 (1 9 6 4 )..................................................... 14 San A ntonio S ch ool D is tr ic t v . R od rig u ez 411 U .S . 1 (1 9 7 2 ) .......................................... 18, 28, 30 S parrow v . G ill 304 F .S u p p . 86 (M .D . N .C . 1969) . . ............... 6, 7 Spencer v . K ugler 326 F .S u p p . 1235 (D. N. J. 1 9 7 1 ) ........................................................ 21, 23 S pencer v . K ugler 404 U .S . 1027 (1 9 7 2 ) ....................................... 21, 23 S trick land v . B urns 256 F .S u p p . 824 (M .D . Tenn. 1 9 6 6 ) .................... 15 P a g e V Swann v . C h a r lo tte -M eck len b u rg B oa rd o f E ducation 402 U .S . 1 (1 9 7 1 ) ................................................. 21, 24 United States v . B utler 297 U .S . 1 (1 9 3 6 ) ........................................................... 32 W alla W alla v . W alla W alla W ater C o. 172 U .S . 1 (1 8 9 8 )........................................................... 32 W right v . C ou n cil o f the C ity o f E m p oria 407 U .S . 451 (1 9 7 2 )............................................... 24, 29 C a ses (State) Kent C ounty B oard o f E ducation v . Kent County Tax A llo ca tio n B oard 350 M ich . 327, 86 N .W . 2d 277 (1 9 5 7 ) ............... 9 M arathon S ch ool D is t r ic t N o. 4 v . G age 39 M ich . 484 (1 8 7 8 ) ...................................................... 9 S ch ool D is t r ic t o f C ity o f Lansing v. State B oa rd o f E ducation 367 M ich . 591, 1 1 6 N .W . 2d 866 (1 9 6 2 ) ............................................................................ 5, 14 S econ d a ry A u th ority 16 C . J .S . "C on stitu tion a l L aw " S ec. 104 (1 9 5 6 ) ......................................................... 5 S ec . 1 0 7 ........................................................................ 6 S ec. 1 4 4 ........................................................................ 7 S ec . 1 4 5 ........................................................................ 8 S ec . 1 5 1 ........................................................................ 6 P age IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES January T e r m , 1974 NO. 7 3 -434 RO N A LD B R A D L E Y , et a l. , * v s . P etit i o n e rs , W ILL IA M G . M ILLIK E N , et a l. , R esp on d en ts . ON A P P E A L FRO M THE SIXTH CIRCU IT COU RT O F A P P E A L S B R IE F OF N A TIO N A L SUBURBAN LE A G U E , L T D ., AMICUS CU RIA E , IN SU PPO R T O F PE TITIO N E RS INTRODUCTION In terest o f A m icu s C u riae The N ational Suburban L eagu e , L td . , is a n on p r o fit c o r p o ra t io n w h ich ex is ts fo r the e x p re s s p u r p ose o f a rticu la tin g the needs o f suburban m u n ic i p a lit ie s . Its m o s t im p orta n t ch a rte r functions a re : (a) to p r e s e r v e and sa fegu a rd the in depen den ce , in teg r ity , and h om e ru le o f suburban m u n ic ip a litie s 2 aga in st a ll fo rm s o f m etrop o lita n en croa ch m en t; (b) to p r o te c t h is to r ic s o u r c e s o f reven u e fo r su b urban g overn m en t; (c) to k eep lo c a l g overn m en t c lo s e , r e s p o n s iv e , im p orta n t, and m ean in gfu l to its c it iz e n s ; (d) to p ro v id e a c o l le c t iv e v o ic e fo r a ll suburban c it iz e n s b e fo r e state and nationa l g o v ern m en ts ; and (e) to fo s te r in te r -m u n ic ip a l c o op era tion , e s p e c ia lly am ong suburban m u n ic ip a lit ie s . If the ru lin g b e lo w is upheld , a s e r io u s b low w ill be d ea lt to lo c a l h om e ru le and s e lf -g o v e rn m e n t . The b ou n d a ries o f the s c h o o l d is tr ic t s in v o lv ed a re co te rm in u s w ith the b ou n d a ries o f the re la ted m u n i c ip a lit ie s . The autonom y o f the p eop le o f the su b urban m u n ic ip a lit ie s w ould b e in fr in g ed in v io la tion o f the 10th A m endm ent to the F e d e ra l C on stitu tion . 3 QUESTIONS PR E SEN TE D I. W hether the o rd e r o f the D is t r ic t C ou rt, a ff irm e d in part b y the Sixth C ir cu it C ou rt o f A p p e a ls , is a p ro p e r e x e r c is e o f its ju d ic ia l a u th ority? II. W hether such an o rd e r is a p p rop r ia te ly d ir e c te d at the defendants in this ca u se ? III. W R ether, absen t a show ing o f de ju re se g re g a tio n , qua lita tive and quantitative equality in education w ill be m andated? 4 S T A T E M E N T O F THE CASE The C ircu it C ou rt o f A ppea ls fo r the Sixth C i r cu it has a p a rt o f its op in ion re p o rte d in B ra d le y v . M illik en , 484 F . 2d 216 (6th C ir . 1973), a ff irm e d the o rd e r o f the D is t r ic t C ou rt in this m a tte r , 345 F . Supp. 914, that a D etro it m etrop o lita n a re a d e seg re g a tio n plan b e d ev e lop ed in o rd e r to in teg ra te the D etro it s c h o o l sy s te m . Such a plan w ou ld in v o lv e the in t e r -d is t r ic t b u ssin g o f students betw een the D etro it s c h o o l d is t r ic t and up to m o r e than fifty suburban d is t r ic t s . The finding o f de ju re d is c r im ination m ade b y the D is t r ic t C ou rt w as upheld . The d is cr im in a tio n ch a rg ed w as fr o m a lle g e d g e r r y m an derin g o f s c h o o l d is t r ic t s , h ou sin g patterns and s ite s e le c t io n o f s c h o o ls . A RG U M EN T I. THE ORDER O F THE D ISTR IC T CO U R T IS NOT A P R O P E R E X E R C ISE O F ITS JU D ICIAL A U T H O R IT Y . A . TH A T PO RTIO N O F THE ORDER DEALIN G W ITH IN T E R -D IS T R IC T BUSSING IS A D E ROGATIO N O F THE C O N STITU TIO N A L PR IN C IP L E O F SE P A R A T IO N O F PO W ER S, IN TH A T IT IS A JU D ICIAL E N CR O A C H M E N T ON A LE G ISL A T IV E FU N CTION . The o rd e r o f the D is t r ic t C ou rt, a ff irm e d b y the Sixth C ir cu it C ou rt o f A ppea ls i s , in e ffe c t , id en tica l to an o rd er in g o f the co n so lid a tio n o f s ch o o l d is tr ic ts or the re v is in g o f s c h o o l d is t r ic t boun dary lin e s . Such an o rd e r i s , in the State o f M ich igan , w ithin the e x c lu s iv e p ow er o f the state 5 le g is la tu r e . The M ich igan Suprem e C ourt has c le a r ly esta b lish ed this p ro p o s it io n , as shown by its language in S ch ool D is tr ic t o f L ansing v. State B oard o f E d u ca tion , 367 M ich . 591, 595, 116 N. W. 2d 866 (1962): Unlike the delegation o f oth er p ow ers by the le g is la tu re to lo c a l g overn m en ts , education is not in h eren tly a part o f the lo c a l s e l f -g o v e r n m ent o f a m u n icip a lity excep t in so fa r as the le g is la tu re m ay ch o o se to m ake it such. C on tr o l o f our public s ch o o l sy stem is a State m a tter delegated and lodged in the State le g is la tu re by the C onstitution . An attem pt b y the ju d ic ia ry to a ff irm a tiv e ly o rd e r the a lte ra tion o f s c h o o l d is t r ic t b o u n d a r ie s , e f fe c t iv e ly i f not e x p lic it ly in this c a s e , thus in fr in g e s on the p ro v in ce o f the le g is la tu re . W hether it is a state or fe d e ra l co u r t w h ich attem pts to do this is im m a te r ia l; the e ffe c t is the sa m e , and the e ffe c t is one c a r e fu lly guarded a ga in st in this co u n try , as pointed out in 16 C . J. S. "C on stitu tion a l L aw " S ec . 104 at 483 (1956): The sep a ra tion o f govern m en ta l p ow ers in to le g is la t iv e , ex ecu tiv e , and ju d ic ia l is p r o v id ed fo r in p r a c t ic a lly a ll the A m e r ica n state con stitu tion s , and such p r o v is io n s , in th eory , e f fe c t an a bso lu te sep aration o f th ese d e p a r t m en ts . Indeed, con stitu tion a l govern m en t in the United States is d istin gu ish ed b y the c a r e that has b een e x e r c is e d in com m ittin g the l e g i s la t iv e , e x e cu tiv e , and ju d ic ia l functions to sep a ra te d ep a rtm en ts , and in forb id d in g any en croa ch m en t b y one departm ent on another in e x e r c is e o f the authority so de legated . 6 The State o f M ich igan has a cted w ith in the p ro v is io n s o f the fe d e r a l con stitu tion in p rov id in g that its le g is la tu re sh a ll c o n tr o l s ch o o ls and s c h o o l d is t r ic t s , as is show n b y the fo llow in g language: In other w o r d s , the F ou rteen th A m endm ent o f the fe d e ra l C onstitu tion lea v es the states fr e e to d is tr ib u te the p ow ers o f g overn m en t as they w il l b etw een the v a r io u s b ra n ch es th e re o f. Id. at 486 (footn ote om itted ). F u rth er s p e c if ic su pport o f this p ro p o s it io n is g iven as fo llo w s : M atters that have b een h eld w ith in the s co p e o f the le g is la t iv e p o w e r , as d istin gu ish ed fr o m the p ow ers o f the ju d ic ia l and ex ecu tiv e d ep a rtm en ts , a re the a sce r ta in m e n t o f p e r t i nent fa cts fo r le g is la t io n , the c r e a t io n and r e g u lation o f m u n icip a l c o r p o r a t io n s , the c re a t io n and reg u la tion o f quasi co r p o ra t io n s fo r g o v e r n m en ta l p u r p o s e s , the esta b lish m en t and r e o r gan iza tion o f s ch o o l d is t r i c t s , the fix in g and changing o f b ou n d a ries o f su bord in ate g o v e r n m ental units such as county b o u n d a r ie s , and the a u th oriz in g o f m u n icip a l aid to r a i lr o a d s . Id. S ec. 107 at 4 9 3 -9 4 (em ph asis supplied and foo tn otes om itted ). It is a lso noted fr o m the sam e s o u rce that "[t]he g en era l ru le against ju d ic ia l en croa ch m en t on the le g is la tu r e 's dom ain has a lso been applied w ith re s p e c t to . . . s ch o o ls and sch oo l d is t r ic t s . . . . "Id. S ec. 151 (1) at 7 5 3 -5 6 . An exam p le o f the a p p lica tion o f this p r in c ip le , and a d em on stra tion that it is re s p e c te d b y fe d e ra l cou rts re la tiv e to state le g is la tu re s is p rov id ed b y S parrow v . G ill , 304 F. Supp. 86 (M .D . N .C . 1969). That c a s e dea lt w ith a state statute w hich 7 p ro v id e d , in ter a lia , a d is tin ction betw een c ity and county pupils in the a v a ila b ility o f s c h o o l bus t r a n s p orta tion . The co u r t pointed out: We have held the c ity -co u n ty d is tin ction a con stitu tion a lly va lid one. W hether it w ou ld be b e tte r and fa ir e r to a b o lish it and go to a m e a s u r e d -d is ta n c e - fr o m -s c h o o l b a s is as u rged b y p la in tiff is a p o lit ic a l qu estion fo r the p eop le and th e ir le g is la t iv e r e p re se n ta t iv e s . It is not fo r us to a n sw er , and w e w ould e x ce e d our ju r is d ic t io n w e re w e to attem pt it. Id . at 91. Thus, the o rd e r o f the D is t r ic t C ou rt in the instant c a s e is an in tru sion b y the ju d ic ia ry into the law -m a k in g p ro v in ce o f the le g is la tu r e , the p r o h ib ition aga in st w h ich is pointed up in C . J . S . , su p ra , S ec. 144 at 6 9 1 -9 2 : On the other hand, under the th eory o f the sep a ra tion o f p ow ers the ju d ic ia ry d ep artm en t m ust stay w ithin the bounds o f its con stitu tion a l p ow er , and cannot e x e r c is e th ose p ow ers w hich a re to b e found in the other two departm en ts o f govern m en t, such as p ow ers w hich a re n o rm a lly le g is la t iv e or p ow ers w hich a re g e n e ra lly e x ecu tive in th eir nature, or p ow ers w hich a re , b y s p e c if ic con stitu tion a l p ro v is io n , c o n fe r r e d on a departm en t other than the ju d ic ia ry . As d istin gu ish ed fr o m that p r im a ry function o f the ju d ic ia r y to d e c la r e what the law is , as noted e a r lie r in this s e c t io n , it is not a p ro p e r ju d i c ia l function to d e term in e what the law should be or to m ake la w s. . . . (F ootnotes O m itted .) A s noted a b ov e , the M ich igan C onstitution has s p e c if ic a l ly c o n fe r r e d co n tro l o f s ch o o ls and s ch o o l d is tr ic ts upon the le g is la tu re . 8 B . THE ISSUE O F IN T E R -D IS T R IC T BUSSING IS A N O N -JU ST IC IA B L E P O L IT IC A L QUESTION. The su b je ct o f p o lit ic a l q u estion s is d is cu s s e d in C . J . S . , su p ra , S ec . 145. It is th ere poin ted out that it is not n o rm a lly w ith in the p ro v in ce o f the ju d ic ia ry to d e term in e p o lit ic a l q u estion s and that the s co p e o f the te r m in clu d es th ose m a tters in r e gard to w h ich fu ll au th ority has b een d e legated to the le g is la tu r e . Thus, the m a tter in q u estion fa lls w ithin the co n ce p t o f p o lit ic a l q u estion , s in ce it is w ith in the p ro v in ce o f the M ich igan le g is la tu r e . This is su pp orted b y the fo llow in g g e n era l su m m a ry : [N ]or do m a tters perta in in g to the c r e a t io n or b ou n d a ries o f m u n ic ip a lit ie s , addition o f land th ere to , or the detach m en t o f land th e r e fr o m , o rd in a r ily p re se n t q u estion s fo r ju d ic ia l d e te rm in a tion . So, a ls o , w ith r e s p e c t to the fo rm a tio n and d isso lu tio n o f s c h o o l d is t r ic t s , the s e le c t io n and lo ca t io n o f cou n ty se a ts , and the m aking and c o r r e c t io n o f su rv ey s o f pub lic land. Id . at 706 (footn otes om itted ). A lthough th ere is o c c a s io n a l language found to the e ffe c t that the p o lit ic a l q u estion is s u e app lies only to m a tters co n ce rn in g c o n flic ts am ong the b ra n ch es o f the fe d e ra l govern m en t, the co n ce p t has been app lied in n u m erou s c a s e s , such as the instant c a s e , in w h ich a fe d e ra l c o u r t is c o n s id erin g a m atter w ithin the p ro v in ce o f the state l e g is la tu re . It th e re fo re a ppears c le a r ly e sta b lish ed that the p r in c ip le is a p p lica b le h e r e , b y ana logy i f not d ir e c t ly . 9 In the ca s e o f D etro it E d ison C o . v . E ast China Tow nship S ch oo l D is t r ic t N o. 3, 247 F. Supp. 296 (E . D. M ich . 1965), a ff 'd 378 F . 2d 225 (6th C ir . 1967), c e r t , den ied 389 U .S . 932 (1967), p ro p e rty ow ners ch a llen g ed the annexation o f two s c h o o l d i s tr ic ts to the s c h o o l d is t r ic t in w h ich th eir p ro p e rty w as lo ca te d . The d is t r ic t co u r t h e ld that s ch o o l d is t r ic t annexation p ro ce d u re s a re p u re ly le g is la tive m a tters w hich a re not ju s t ic ia b le under the due p r o c e s s or equal p ro te c t io n c la u se s o f the fe d e ra l con stitu tion . The co u r t d is cu s s e d the m atter r e la tive to c a s e s in vo lv in g a lte ra tion o f m u n icip a l b ou n d a r ie s and rea p p ortion m en t. The co u r t n oted , c it in g Hunter v . C ity o f P ittsb u rgh , 207 U .S . 161 (1907): Any a lte ra tion o f m u n icip a l b ou n d a ries is a m atter w ithin the co m p le te d is c r e t io n o f the state and not con fin ed b y any righ ts se cu re d b y the fe d e ra l con stitu tion . 247 F . Supp. at 299. This co m p a r is o n is h igh ly a p p rop r ia te , as s c h o o l d is tr ic ts in M ich igan have the sam e leg a l status as m u n icip a l c o rp o ra t io n s fo r m any p u rp o se s . M arathon S ch oo l D is t r ic t N o. 4 v . G age, 39 M ich . 484 (1878); Kent County B oa rd o f E ducation v . Kent County Tax A llo ca tio n B oa rd , 350 M ich . 327, 86 N .W . 2d 277 (1957). D iscu ss in g rea p p ortion m en t c a s e s , the co u r t in D etro it E d iso n , su p ra , pointed out: A state m ay not c r e a te e le c to r a l d is tr ic t s w hich have a population d isp a r ity . But this is the on ly lim ita tion the c a s e s p la ce upon the le g is la t iv e p ow er o f a state to defin e p o lit ic a l b ou n d a r ie s . They c r e a te no con stitu tion a l righ ts in a ffe cted c it iz e n s con cern in g the p r o ce d u re fo r crea tin g or a lterin g th ese d is t r ic t s . 10 E ven w h ere the C ou rt has h e ld e le c to r a l d is t r ic t b ou n d a ries m u st be a lte re d , it has fa iled to e sta b lish a s p e c if ic p r o ce d u r e to a c co m p lis h th is . R eyn olds v . S im s, 377 U .S . 533, 585, 84 S .C t . 1362, 12 L . E d. 2d 506 (1964). F u rth er , the c a s e s have nothing to do w ith lim ite d p u r p ose d is t r ic t s , such as s c h o o l d is t r ic t s . 247 F . Supp. at 301. On the annexation is s u e , the co u r t con c lu d ed : The foundation on w h ich the H unter d o c tr in e has stood fo r h a lf a cen tu ry on the is s u e o f annexation p r o ce d u r e is as sturdy as e v e r . This c o u r t h o ld s , th e r e fo r e , that the s c h o o l d is t r ic t annexation p ro ce d u r e o f the M ich igan S ch oo l C ode w h ich w as fo llow ed b y the o r ig in a l E ast China d is t r ic t in fo rm in g the com b in ed d is t r ic t , is a p u re ly le g is la t iv e m a tte r . It is not ju s t ic ia b le under the due p r o c e s s or the equal p ro te c t io n c la u se s o f the F ourteenth A m endm ent to the fe d e ra l con stitu tion . Id . at 302. In a ffirm in g this d e c is io n , the co u r t o f appeals stated : H ow ev er , as the D is t r ic t C ou rt n oted , the r e ap p ortion m en t c a s e s " c r e a t e no con stitu tion a l righ ts in a ffe c te d c it iz e n s co n ce rn in g the p r o ce d u re fo r c re a t in g or a lte r in g " any type o f state d is t r ic t . The ju dgm en t o f the D is t r ic t C ou rt w ith r e s p e c t to the annexation is s u e w ill h e re in a fte r b e a ffirm e d ; r e fe r e n c e is m ade to the w e ll re a so n e d opin ion o f D is tr ic t Judge T h eod ore L ev in re p o rte d at 247 F . Supp. 296. 378 F . 2d at 229. 11 Since the annexation o f s ch o o l d is tr ic t s and the in t e r -d is t r ic t b u ssin g o f students have e ss e n tia lly the sa m e p r a c t ica l e ffe c t , the hold ing and ca r e fu lly rea son ed opin ion o f the d is t r ic t co u r t in that c a s e is c le a r ly a p p lica b le to the m atter in q u estion . An exam ination o f a s e r ie s o f rea p p ortion m en t c a s e s is quite in s tru ctiv e on the is s u e in vo lv ed h e r e . The tra d ition a l v iew w as d e s c r ib e d b y J u stice F ra n k fu rte r in h is opin ion fo r the C ou rt in C o le g r o v e v . G re e n , 328 U .S . 549 (1946): W e a re o f op in ion that the appellants ask o f this C ou rt what is beyon d its co m p e te n ce to grant. This is one o f th ose dem ands on ju d i c ia l pow er w h ich cannot be m et b y v e rb a l fe n c ing about " ju r is d ic t io n ." It m u st b e r e s o lv e d b y co n s id e ra tio n s on the b a s is o f w h ich this C ou rt, f r o m tim e to t im e , has re fu sed to in te r ven e in c o n t r o v e r s ie s . It has re fu sed to do so b e ca u se due re g a rd fo r the e ffe c t iv e w ork in g o f our G overn m en t re v e a le d this is s u e to be o f a p e cu lia r ly p o lit ic a l nature and th e re fo re not m eet fo r ju d ic ia l d eterm in a tion . Id . at 552. This statem ent show s the r e s p e c t held by the Suprem e C ou rt fo r the im p orta n ce o f d e c l in ing to in te r fe r e w ith the w ork ing o f a state le g is la tu re and that rea son in g is equally a p p lica b le h e r e . J u stice F ran k fu rter w ent on to point out: In e f fe c t this is an appeal to the fe d e ra l cou rts to r e c o n s tr u c t the e le c to r a l p r o c e s s o f I llin o is in o rd e r that it m ay be adequately re p re se n te d in the co u n c ils o f the N ation. B eca u se the Illin o is le g is la tu re has fa iled to r e v is e its C o n g re ss io n a l R ep resen ta tiv e d is tr ic ts in 1 2 o rd e r to r e f le c t g rea t ch a n g es , during m o re than a g en era tion , in the d is tr ib u tion o f its popu lation , w e a re ask ed to do th is , as it w e r e , fo r I ll in o is . O f c o u r s e no co u r t can a ff irm a tiv e ly rem ap the I llin o is d is tr ic t s so as to b r in g th e m m o re in c o n fo rm ity w ith the standards o f fa irn e ss fo r a re p re se n ta tiv e sy s te m . At b e s t w e cou ld on ly d e c la r e the ex istin g e le c to r a l s y s te m in v a lid . Id . at 5 5 2 -5 3 . On the point o f the a ction re q u ire d , that ca s e w as id en tica l to the p re se n t c a s e . The d is t r ic t co u r t h e re has attem pted to r e -m a p s c h o o l d i s t r ic t s , b y m eans o f n u llify in g b ou n d a ries b y in te r - d is t r ic t b u ss in g , and it should not be p erm itted to do so b e ca u s e o f the p r in c ip le s d e s c r ib e d by Ju stice F ra n k fu rter . In G om illion v . L ig h tfoo t , 364 U .S . 339 (I9 6 0 ), the C ou rt did find an a p p rop ria te c a s e fo r r e l ie f , d istingu ish in g C o le g r o v e v . G re e n , su p ra , as f o l low s : The d e c is iv e fa cts in this c a s e , w h ich at this stage m u st be taken as p ro v e d , a re w h o lly d i f fe ren t fr o m the co n s id e ra t io n s found co n tro llin g in C o le g r o v e . That c a s e in v o lv ed a com p la in t o f d is c r im in a to r y app ortion m en t o f c o n g r e s s io n a l d is t r ic t s . The appellants in C o le g ro v e c o m p la ined only o f a d ilu tion o f the strength o f th eir v o tes as a re s u lt o f le g is la t iv e in action ov er 13 a c o u r s e o f m any y e a r s . The p e tit ion ers h e re co m p la in that a ffirm a tiv e le g is la t iv e a ction d e p r iv e s them o f their v o tes and the con sequ en t advantages that the b a llo t a ffo rd s . Id at 346. That d is tin ction is d ir e c t ly a p p lica b le in the instant c a s e . In G o m illio n , the C ou rt s tru ck down a re -d r a ft in g o f b o u n d a r ie s . Any r a c ia l im b a la n ce w h ich ex ists am ong M ich igan s c h o o l d i s tr ic ts is the re s u lt o f population m ovem en t fo r s o c io -e c o n o m ic or p e rso n a l rea son s w ith in a s ch o o l d is tr ic t bou n d ary stru ctu re w hich has b een in e x is te n ce fo r m any y e a r s , ra th er than a re s u lt o f any a ffirm a tiv e r e -s t r u c tu r in g o f the b ou n d a r ie s . A test fo r d eterm in in g what is a n o n -ju s t ic ia b le p o lit ic a l q u estion w as stated in B aker v . C a r r , 369 U .S . 186 (1962): W e c o m e , fin a lly , to the u ltim ate in qu iry w hether our p reced en ts as to what con stitu tes a n o n -ju s t ic ia b le "p o lit ic a l q u estion " b rin g the c a s e b e fo r e us under the u m b re lla o f that d o c tr in e . A natural beginning is to note w hether any o f the com m on c h a r a c te r is t ic s w hich w e have b een able to iden tify and la b e l d e s c r ip t iv e ly a re p resen t. We find none: The q u e s tion h e re is the co n s is te n cy o f state a ction with the F e d e ra l C onstitu tion . We have no qu estion d e c id e d , or to be d e c id e d , b y a p o lit ic a l b ra n ch o f g overn m en t c o -e q u a l w ith this C ou rt. N or do w e r is k em b a rra ssm e n t o f our govern m en t a b roa d , or g ra v e d istu rb a n ce at h om e i f w e take is s u e w ith T en n essee as to the co n s t itu tion a lity o f h er a ction h ere ch a llen g ed . N or need the appellan ts, in ord er to su cce e d in this a ction , ask the C ourt to enter upon p o licy d eterm in ation s fo r w hich ju d ic ia lly m anageable standards a re la ck in g . 14 Id . at 226 (em ph asis su pp lied ). The instant c a s e fa lls w ithin the p o lit ic a l q u e s tion ca te g o r y as bein g the kind o f c a s e an tic ipa ted b y the u n derlin ed p ortion o f the above quotation . S ince the c r e a t io n o f s c h o o l d is t r ic t b ou n d a ries is not an a ctiv ity o f the ju d ic ia r y , th ere a re no ju d ic ia l standards fo r so doin g . H ow ev er , this function is c le a r ly w ithin the e x p e rt is e o f the le g is la tu r e , w h ich can draw not only upon k n ow ledge gained fr o m e x p e r ie n c e in this a ct iv ity , but can a ls o r e ly upon k n ow ledge gained fr o m studying the n eeds and d e s ir e s o f the c it iz e n s o f the state . A nother fa c to r in d eterm in in g w hether this is a p o lit ic a l q u estion is pointed out in R eyn old s v . S im s , 377 U .S . 533 (1964). In that c a s e , in d e te r m ining that a p o lit ic a l q u estion w as not in v o lv ed , the C ou rt o b se rv e d : No e ffe c t iv e p o lit ic a l re m e d y to obtain r e l ie f aga in st the a lleg ed m a lap p ortion m en t o f the A labam a L e g is la tu re a p p ea rs to have b een a v a ila b le . Id . at 553. In that c a s e , then, the C ou rt fe lt co m p e lle d to g ive r e l ie f , s in ce no other rem ed y w as a v a il able . In the instant c a s e , i f the p eop le o f M ich igan b e lie v e that s c h o o l d is t r ic t b ou n d a ries should be a lte re d , they have the opportun ity to co n v e y this b e l ie f to their e le c te d r e p re s e n ta t iv e s , and the le g is la tu re can m ake any a p p rop ria te a lte ra tio n s . As d is cu s s e d a b ov e , and as noted in S ch oo l D is tr ic t of C ity o f Lansing v . State B oa rd o f E du cation , su p ra , the state le g is la tu re has the pow er to org a n ize and 15 co n tr o l s c h o o l d is tr ic ts in the state , in clu d in g th e pow er to p rov id e fo r the a ltera tion o f b ou n d a ries o f s c h o o l d is t r ic t s . Thus, it is en tire ly a p p rop ria te that this kind o f a ction be taken b y the le g is la tu r e , not b y the co u r t . The d ifficu lty and d e lic a c y o f p rov id in g a ju d ic ia l re m e d y in this type o f situation w as astu te ly noted b y the d is t r ic t co u r t in S trick land v . B u rn s , 256 F. Supp. 824 (M .D . Tenn. 1966). In that ca s e a statute p rov id in g fo r apportion m en t fo r voting fo r m e m b e rs o f s c h o o l b oa rd s w as ch a llen g ed . The co u r t h e ld : We h o ld , th e r e fo r e , that the d is cr im in a tio n ex istin g is in v id iou s . S ince w e can find no b a s is fo r applying the "on e m an, one v o te " ru le to the c o n g e r ie s o f p ow ers p o s s e s s e d by the L e g is la tu re i t s e l f and at the sam e tim e denying its a p p lica tion to a su bord in ate b od y s im p ly b e ca u se it p o s s e s s e s a fra c t io n a l part o f th ose p o w e rs , so long at le a s t as the f r a c tion a l part cannot be sa id to b e in s ig n ifica n t or un im portan t, w e m ust a ls o hold that the a p p ortion m en t p ro v is io n s o f the A ct com p la in ed o f a re v o id as v io la tiv e o f rights s e cu re d b y the E qual P ro te ct io n C lau se o f the Fourteenth A m en dm en t. The p ro v is io n o f p ro p e r r e l ie f to im p lem en t this d e c is io n has g iven this co u r t m uch c o n c e rn . We b e lie v e that the form u la tion o f a co n s t itu tion a lly a ccep ta b le m ethod o f se le c t in g a b oa rd to a d m in ister the sch o o ls o f the county is m o re p r o p e r ly a le g is la t iv e function than a ju d ic ia l one. 16 Id. at 827. As a re s u lt o f its d e term in a tion that this w as a le g is la t iv e fun ction , the co u r t d ec lin ed to g ive the req u ested in ju n ctive r e l ie f . T h ese au th orities show v e r y c le a r ly , then, that a p r o g r a m o f in t e r -d is t r ic t b u ss in g o f s c h o o l c h i l d ren is not a p p ro p r ia te ly c re a te d b y the ju d ic ia r y , but ra th er such a ction s a re the e x c lu s iv e p ro v in ce o f the le g is la tu r e . This w as the d e c is io n in the fa ctu a lly s im ila r c a s e o f B ra d ley v . S ch oo l B oa rd o f the C ity o f R ic h m on d , 462 F . 2d 1058 (4th C ir . 1972), a f f 'd , 412 U .S . 92 (1973), w h ich the Sixth C ir cu it C ou rt o f A ppeals attem pted to d istin g u ish : We th e re fo re con c lu d e that the D is t r ic t C ou rt in the p re se n t c a s e is not con fin ed to the bou n d ary lin es o f D etro it in fash ion ing equ itable r e l ie f . B ra d ley v . S ch oo l B oa rd o f the C ity o f R ich m on d is d in tingu ishable in s e v e r a l r e s p e c t s . In that c a s e the D is tr ic t C ou rt o rd e re d an actua l co n so lid a tio n o f th ree sep a ra te s c h o o l d is tr ic t s a ll o f w h ich the C ou rt o f A ppea ls fo r the F ourth C ircu it d e c la r e d to be u n itary in the instant ca s e the D is t r ic t C ou rt has not o rd e re d c o n s o lid a tion o f s c h o o l d is tr ic t s but d ir e c te d a study o f plans fo r the rea ss ig n m en t o f pupils in s c h o o l d is tr ic t s co m p r is in g the m etrop o lita n a rea o f D etro it . In the R ich m on d c a s e the co u r t found that n eith er the C onstitu tion n or statutes o f V irg in ia , p r e v io u s ly or p re se n tly in e ffe c t , w ou ld have p erm itted the State B oard o f E d u ca tion , acting a lon e , to have e ffe c te d a c o n s o lid a tion o f the th ree s ch o o l d is tr ic t s into a s in g le sy stem under the co n tro l o f a sing le 17 s c h o o l b o a rd . The F ourth C ir cu it h e ld that c o m p u ls o r y con so lid a tion o f p o lit ic a l su b d iv i s ion s o f the State o f V irg in ia w as beyon d the pow er o f a fe d e ra l co u r t b e ca u se o f the Tenth A m endm ent to the C onstitu tion o f the United S tates. The d e c is io n s w h ich now a re under rev iew did not con tem p la te such a re s tru c tu r in g . 484 F . 2d at 2 5 0 -5 1 . W e re s p e c t fu lly contend that the R ich m on d c a s e is not thus d istin g u ish a b le . In R ich m on d the co u r t had o rd e re d a co n so lid a tio n o f s c h o o l d is t r ic t s . In M illik en , in te r -d is t r ic t b u ssin g has b een o rd e re d . The la b e ls a re thus d iffe ren t, but the e ffe c t is the sa m e . A d m in istra tiv e ly , th ere m ay be a d if fe r e n c e , but in te rm s o f attendance p a t tern s the re s u lt is the sa m e , and attendance p a t tern s a re the re a l is s u e in a d ese g re g a tio n plan. It w as pointed out that in the R ich m on d c a s e , the State B oa rd o f E ducation w as w ithout authority to o rd e r the co n so lid a tio n . This m akes the instant c a s e even s tro n g e r fo r r e je c t io n o f the plan , fo r h e r e th ere is an a ltern ative rem ed y . As d is cu sse d su p ra , the M ich igan le g is la tu re is fu lly em p ow ered to take any a ction that is re q u ire d . II. THE ORDER O F THE D ISTRICT COU RT IS IN A P P R O P R IA T E IN TH AT IT IS D IR E CTE D A T P A R TIES WHO ARE W ITHOUT THE A U TH O R ITY TO C O M P L Y WITH THE O R D E R . A s c le a r ly esta b lish ed in p rev iou s d is cu s s e d , the M ich igan le g is la tu re is s o le ly re s p o n s ib le fo r the co n tr o l o f s ch o o ls and s ch o o l d is t r ic t s . None o f the defendants in this m atter have the authority to im p lem en t a plan o f in te r -d is t r ic t b u ssin g as 18 su g gested b y the o rd e r o f the d is t r ic t co u r t . This p r in c ip le w as c le a r ly e sta b lish ed in B ra d le y v . S ch oo l B oa rd o f C ity o f R ich m on d , su p ra , and this c o n c lu s io n is lo g ic a l ly in e sca p a b le . III. A B SE N T A SHOWING O F DE JURE SEG REG ATIO N - ER RO N E O U SLY FOUND B Y THE SIXTH C IRC U IT CO U RT O F A P P E A L S - - THIS C O U R T W IL L NOT R E -B A L A N C E THE RIGHTS O F P A R T IE S TO ACH IEVE E ITH E R A Q U A N T IT A T IV E OR A Q U A L I T A T IV E E Q U A L IT Y . The United States S uprem e C ou rt has c o n s is t ently h e ld that c la s s if ic a t io n s o f p eop le w ill not be stru ck dow n as o ffe n s iv e to the con stitu tion m e r e ly b e ca u se such d is tin ction s am ong them a re "n o t m ade w ith m a th em a tica l n ice ty or b e ca u s e in p r a c t ic e it re su lts in som e in e q u ity ." D andridge v . W illia m s , 397 U .S . 471 , 484 (1970). The Suprem e C ou rt has re fu se d to ru le on the fa irn e ss o f a p a r ty 's c i r c u m stan ces and in stead e x e r c is e s its p ow er on ly when le g is la t io n is u n rea son a b le or im p in g es on a funda m ental r igh t or c r e a te s a c la s s w h ich is in h eren tly su sp e ct . Substantive con stitu tion a l righ ts m ay not be m ade b y the Court: "It is not the p ro v in ce o f this C ou rt to c r e a te substantive con stitu tion a l righ ts in the nam e o f guaranteeing equal p ro te c t io n o f the la w s ." San A ntonio S ch ool D is t r ic t v . R o d r ig u e z , 411 U .S . 1, 33 .(1972) S im ila r co n s id e ra t io n s a re in e ffe c t when the issu e o f im p e r m is s ib le state a ction is litiga ted . Quite c le a r ly the State m ay not o v e rtly d is cr im in a te aga inst a ce r ta in r a c e w hether in edu cation , B row n v . B oard o f E d u ca tion , 347 U .S . 483 (1954); or in 19 h ou sin g , Hunter v . E r ic k s o n , 393 U. S. 385 (1969). The C ou rt has not, h o w e v e r , held that m e r e de fa cto se g re g a tio n , even when im p orta n t righ ts a re in v o lv e d , is enough to w a rra n t the hold ing o f an equal p ro te c t io n v io la tio n . In c a s e s w ith fa cts m o s t s im i la r to the c a s e at b a r , the only d is cr im in a tio n found w as unintentional and thus n o n -re m e d ia b le b y this C ou rt. A secon d co n s id e ra t io n , even beyon d the la ck o f obviou s state a ction , w ould lead this C ou rt to ru le aga in st the Sixth C ircu it d e c is io n . R ecen t c a s e s dea ling w ith housing and p ro p e rty taxes and th e ir re a ct io n upon r a c ia l upw ard m o b ility have co n s is te n tly ana lyzed the req u ested r e l ie f aga in st the righ ts that w ould b e im pin ged b y a finding o f an equal p ro te ct io n v io la tion . The Suprem e C ou rt has r e c o g n iz e d that ce r ta in " r ig h ts " so in h eren t in the p eop le e ffe c te d b y any ru lin g , outweigh the s o c ia l planning a sp ects o f co u r t d e c is io n s . Thus a righ t to v o te , w hen e x p re s se d in a housing re fe ren d u m , lead to a b lo ck in g o f low in com e p eop le into a c e r tain c ity . A lso the righ t to tax on e ’ s s e l f fo r quality- lo c a l s c h o o ls , even though others le s s e co n o m ica lly w e ll o ff w ill be ob v iou sly p re ju d ic ia l, has b een u p h e ld . The one con stan t in these c a s e s is that as long as a c c e s s is open to a ll no lo ca lity m ay be p r e ju d ic ia l fo r its own abundance. T hus, in a de fa cto r a c ia l seg reg a tion c a s e , such as the one at b a r , not only m ust the la ck o f a ffirm a tiv e state a ction c a l l fo r a r e v e r s a l but a ls o the fa c t that the p eop le tru ly at in te re s t , those who liv e n ear the sch o o ls their ch ild ren attend, a re e x e r c is in g a r igh t fa v o ra b ly v iew ed by this C ourt in a num ber o f co n tex ts . Often they m ay m ove s p e c if ic a lly to an a rea to have their ch ild ren attend ce r ta in s c h o o ls . They tax th em se lv es to m aintain and im p ro v e their 20 s c h o o ls . F in a lly they have p a rtic ip a tion in an in stitution w h ich d e s p e ra te ly n eeds such attention . As unequal as the edu cation a l fa c to r m ay be am ong the r a c e s in the D etro it M etrop o lita n A rea th ese p eop le should not b e to ta lly d ep r iv ed o f the s ch o o l d is tr ic t s they have in itia ted and b u ilt in o rd e r to righ t an obviou s s o c ia l w ron g . A hold ing to a ff ir m the Sixth C ir cu it w ould p la ce this C ou rt in the re a lm of s o c ia l planning and, m o r e im p orta n tly , d iv e st o th ers o f righ ts as im p orta n t as any in our nation . E ven a c u r s o r y read in g o f c a s e s on the su b je ct c o n c lu s iv e ly show s how e rro n e o u s w as the hold ing o f the Sixth C ir cu it that the State has com m itted de ju re acts o f se g re g a tio n b y fa ilin g to a ff irm a tiv e ly r e -a lig n the r a c ia l p e r c e n ta g e s in D etro it a rea s c h o o ls . B ra d le y v . M illik en , 484 F . 2d 215, 249 (6th C ir . 1973). The b a s ic find ings to show state a ction w e r e that s c h o o l d is t r ic t lin es w e re draw n to ex clu d e b la c k s , h ousing c ir c u m s ta n c e s a re such that b la ck s u su a lly m ay liv e on ly near ce r ta in s ch o o ls and that s c h o o l co n s tru ct io n has b een only to perpetu ate this d is c r im in a tio n . Y et, as W e ick s , J. c o r r e c t ly show s in h is d isse n t, no finding o f de ju re d is c r im in a tio n has ev er b een h eld on th ese fa c ts . This is e s p e c ia lly so w hen the m agnitude o f the plan is im a g in ed . A p p rox im a te ly th ree co u n ties and ov er fifty s ch o o l d is tr ic t s w ill b e e ffe c te d b y any cu ra tiv e o rd e r . The p resen t B ra d ley d e c is io n co n flic ts w ith a g rea t num ber o f other s ch o o l d e se g re g a tio n c a s e s . In th ese c a s e s on fa cts c lo s e ly p a ra lle l to the instant c a s e only de fa cto d is cr im in a tio n w as show n with no a ffirm a tiv e o rd e r fo rth com in g fr o m the c o u r ts . [C on tra ry to ce r ta in opin ions the de fa c t o /d e ju re d is tin ction reg a rd in g s ch o o l d e se g re g a tio n c a s e s 21 is s t il l v e r y m uch v ia b le as a co n ce p t . See K eyes v . S ch oo l Di s t r ic t N o. 1, D en v er, C o l o . , 413 U .S . 189, 2 0 8 -1 4 (1 9 7 2 ).] Q uite con fu s in g ly the sam e qu estion s in an id en tica l con cep tu a l fra m ew ork w e re o ffe re d to the Sixth C ir cu it in D eal v . C incinnati B oard o f E du cation , 419 F . 2d 1387 (6th C ir . 1969), c e r t , d en ied , 402 U .S . 962 (1971); D eal v . C in cinnati B oa rd o f E ducation , 369 F . 2d 55 (6th C ir . 1966), c e r t , d en ied , 389 U .S . 847 (1967). A lthough in D eal II the d is t r ic t co u r t had not found de ju re se g re g a tio n on the part o f the s c h o o l d is t r ic t the co u r t o f appea ls had the r igh t to v iew the rea son a b le n ess o f th e ir d eterm in a tion . The co u r t con c lu d ed , h o w e v e r , that the d is tr ic t in g had to do w ith s o c ia l ca u se s beyon d the c o n tr o l o f the b oa rd s in ch a rg e : ’ ’B oa rd s o f E ducation can h a rd ly b e b la m ed or held re s p o n s ib le fo r n e igh b orh ood re s id e n tia l p a t te r n s ." D ea l v . C incinnati B oa rd o f E du cation , su p ra , 419 F . 2d at 1392. The m o s t ir r e c o n c i la b le d if fe re n ce w ith B ra d le y c o m e s in c o m p a r is o n w ith the re ce n t d e c is io n o f S pen cer v . K u g le r , 326 F . Supp. 1235 (D. N. J. 1971), a f f 'd , 404 U .S . 1027, w ith D ouglas d is s e n t ing (1972). Under statu tory law quite s im ila r to M ich ig a n 's New J e r s e y had a un itary sy s te m o f e d u ca tion . Thus none o f the fa lse d is cr im in a tio n patterns o f c a s e s like Swann v . C h a r lo tte - M eck len bu rg B oard o f E ducation , 402 U .S . 1 (1971), w e re re lev a n t. In S pen cer p la in tiffs w e r e b la ck s who c la im e d that a ll pub lic s ch o o ls in New J e rs e y w e re r a c ia lly unbalanced . The req u est fo r r e l ie f w as p re m is e d on a v io la tion o f equal p ro te ct io n . The C ou rt, quite lo g ic a lly , found that any s e g r e gation cou ld only be defin ed as de fa cto : 22 In none o f the s c h o o ls o f w h ich the p la in tiffs co m p la in is any b la ck pupil " s e g r e g a te d " fr o m any w hite pupil. Indeed, com p la in t is m ade that the b la ck s w ho re s id e in the s c h o o l d i s t r ic t s e rv e d p red om in a te ov er the w h ites , thus a ffo rd in g an exam p le o f co m p le te d e se g re g a tio n w h ich w as the e x p re s s e d o b je c t o f the co u r t in the B row n c a s e . A t page 487 o f the O pinion at page 688 o f 74 S. Ct. in B row n it is stated that: "In each o f the c a s e s [ fr o m K an sa s, South C a ro lin a , V irg in ia and D ela w a re ] m in ors o f the N eg ro r a c e , through th e ir le g a l r e p re s e n ta t iv e s , seek the aid o f the co u rts in obtain ing a d m iss io n to the pu b lic s ch o o ls o f th e ir com m u n ity on a n on seg reg a ted b a s is . In each in sta n ce , they had b een den ied a d m iss io n to s c h o o ls attended b y w hite ch ild re n under law s req u ir in g or p erm ittin g se g re g a tio n a c c o r d in g to r a c e . " Such is not the b a s is upon w h ich each o f the p la in tiffs in the p re se n t c a s e seek s r e l ie f in this ca u se . On the co n tr a r y p la in tiffs w ould have a su bstan tia l p ortion o f the pupils now in attendance in th eir r e s p e c t iv e s ch o o ls o rd e re d b y the co u r t re m o v e d fr o m th ese s ch o o ls and a ss ig n ed to a s c h o o l in another d is t r ic t . A l te rn a tiv e ly p la in tiffs w ou ld have the co u r t a b o l ish the re s p e c t iv e d is tr ic t s in w h ich the d i s p ro p o rt io n b etw een w hite and b la ck students is red u ced in one d ir e c t io n or the oth er. If, as p la in tiffs con ten d , the p rop ortion a te b la ck a t tendance in their r e s p e c t iv e sch o o ls a d v e rs e ly a ffe c ts the d e g re e o f e x c e lle n c e o f education w h ich they can r e c e iv e th ere m u st b e a point at w hich any e x c e s s o f b la ck s ov er w h ites is 23 lik e ly to im p a ir the quality o f the edu cation a va ila b le in that s c h o o l fo r the b la ck pu p ils . N ow here in the A ppendix file d b y the p la in tiffs or in the fa cts in vo lv ed in any o f the ju d ic ia l p re ced en ts w hich they c ite a re w e in fo rm e d o f the s p e c if ic r a c ia l p ro p o rt io n s w hich a re lik e ly to a ssu re m axim u m e x ce lle n ce o f the e d u ca tion a l advantages a va ila b le fo r the w h ites . A ssu m in g furth er that e ffo r ts to a ch iev e the id ea l in te r r a c ia l p ro p o rt io n n e c e s s a r i ly in clu d e the a ltera tion o f the population fa c to r d eterm in a tiv e o f the re d is tr ic t in g , th ere can b e no a ssu ra n ce that the population fa c to r w ill rem a in s ta tic . If s o , it w ould be n e c e s s a r y to s u c c e s s iv e ly re a s s ig n pupils to another d is t r ic t as the ra te o f b ir th s and graduations a lte rs the r a c ia l p ro p o rt io n s crea tin g the dem and fo r the edu cation a l fa c il it ie s as it changes f r o m te rm to te rm . In sum , the d ifficu lty com p la in ed o f d oes not am ount to u n constitu tiona l se g re g a tio n . 326 F . Supp. at 1 239 -40 . This is c ited in W e ick ’ s d issen t, B ra d le y , su p ra , 484 F . 2d at 2 6 1 -6 2 . The co u r t in S pen cer fu rth er noted that s o c ia l d is lo c a tion., even when it re su lted in r a c ia l im b a la n ce in public s c h o o ls , w as not a ground fo r a ru lin g o f a con stitu tion a l v io la tion : A continuing trend tow ard r a c ia l im b a la n ce ca u sed b y housing patterns w ithin the v a r iou s s c h o o l d is tr ic ts is not su scep tib le to fe d e ra l ju d ic ia l in terven tion . The New J e rs e y L e g is la ture has b y intent m aintained a u n itary sy ste m o f public education , a lb e it that sy s te m has d e gen erated to ex trem e r a c ia l im b a la n ce in som e s c h o o l d is t r ic t s ; n e v erth e le ss the statutes in q u estion as they a re p resen tly con stitu ted a re con stitu tion a l. Id. at 1243. 24 The m a jo r ity in B ra d le y w as apparen tly c o n fu sed b y the th e o re t ic a l d if fe r e n c e s in c a s e s like Swann v . C h a r lo tte -M e ck le n b u rg B oa rd o f E d u ca tion , su p ra , and W right v . C ou n cil o f the C ity o f E m p o r ia , 407 U .S . 451 (1972). In Swann, su p ra , an h is t o r ic a l s tru ctu re o f m a n d atory sep a ra tion o f the r a c e s into dual edu cation a l sy stem s w as bein g c o r r e c t e d . The S uprem e C ou rt noted that it w as this c o r r e c t io n w h ich gave the ju d ic ia r y im petus to in te rv en e : A bsen t a con stitu tion a l v io la tio n th ere w ou ld be no b a s is fo r ju d ic ia lly o rd e r in g a ss ig n m en t o f students on a r a c ia l b a s is . A ll things b e in g equal, w ith no h is to r y o f d is c r im in a t io n , it m ight w e ll b e d e s ira b le to a ss ig n pupils to s ch o o ls n e a r e s t th eir h o m e s . But a ll things a re not equal in a sy s te m that has b een d e lib e ra te ly co n s tru cte d and m aintained to e n fo r ce r a c ia l se g re g a tio n . . . . The o b je c t iv e is to d ism an tle the dual s c h o o l sy s te m . Id . at 28 (em ph asis su p p lied ). S im ila r c o n s id e r a tions w e re ev iden t in W rig h t, su p ra ,w h en the Suprem e C ou rt s tru ck down the C ity 's attem pt to c r e a te a sep a ra te s c h o o l sy s te m . The new sy ste m w ould have s e rv e d to im p ed e the d ism an tlin g o f the dual s tru ctu re : The c i t y 's c r e a t io n o f a sep a ra te s c h o o l sy s te m w as en jo in ed b e ca u se o f the e f fe c t it w ou ld have had at the tim e upon the e ffe c t iv e n e s s o f the re m e d y o rd e re d to d ism an tle the dual sy s te m that had long ex is ted in the a re a . Id. at 470. 25 Q uite c le a r ly the d is cr im in a tio n ev ident in the D etro it a rea is a re s u lt o f co m p le x and la r g e ly m y ste r io u s s o c ia l f o r c e s . Any finding o f de ju re state a ction b a sed upon s o c ia l change is c le a r ly e r r o n e o u s . The B ra d ley v . M illik en , su pra , c o u r t should have m ade a finding that only de fa cto s e g r e gation ex is te d . B ased upon findings o f de fa cto seg re g a tio n or o f an unequal burden p la ced on a c la s s b y le g is la tion the Suprem e C ou rt has analyzed the im p orta n ce o f r igh ts in v o lv ed . E ven when dealing w ith su b jects having im p orta n t s o c ia l w eigh t, h o w e v e r , the Suprem e C ou rt has upheld ce r ta in rights or exp ectation s in h eren t in the co n ce p t o f a fr e e p eop le . The p re se n t c a s e p resen ts no situation to change this th e o re t ica l c o n s is te n cy . A n ega tive exam ple m ay s e r v e to c le a r ly d e lin eate the is s u e . In the c a s e s o f H unter v . E r ic k so n , su p ra , and R eitm an v . M ulkey , 387 U .S . 369 (1967), the Suprem e C ou rt w ent through an obvious ba la n cin g a ct betw een the righ t to v o te and the righ t to rem a in fr e e fr o m d is cr im in a tio n . In Hunter the C ou rt in va lidated an am endm ent to the A kron F a ir H ousingO rdin an ce b e ca u se it m ade a ll attem pts to regu la te aga in st r a c ia l d is cr im in a tio n in hou sin g su b je ct to v o te r a p p rov a l. The burden cou ld fa ll only on m in o r it ie s . Other housing ord in a n ces (not dea ling w ith ra ce ) took e ffe c t w ithout any sp e c ia l le g is la t io n . In R eitm an the righ t to r a c ia lly d is cr im in a te in the sa le o f rea l estate w ould have b e co m e part o f the State o f C a lifo rn ia 's con stitu tion . As such it w ould have b een im m une fr o m regu la tion . The ba lan cin g o f righ ts b e ca m e m uch le s s o f a p r o b le m when the C ou rt w as fa ced with such a p ern ic iou s ou tcom e . T h ese c a s e s have b een , h o w e v e r , the e x - cep ti on. 26 The Suprem e C ou rt has b een ca re fu l to p r o te c t what m ay be te rm e d the righ ts o f s o c ia l ex p ecta n cy . B a s ic a lly such righ ts a re entw ined w ith the eth ic that an ind iv idual is fr e e to pursue h is l i f e 's ca llin g w h ere and when he c h o o s e s . V e ry often this eth ic jo in s w ith a se con d b od y o f th e o ry , the m a jo r i - ta rian e th ic . Thus a r e la t iv e ly w ea lth y ind iv idual m ay seek oth ers s im ila r ly situated e co n o m ic a lly in o rd e r to fo r m a com m u n ity . S ch oo ls and other a m en ities o f life m ay b e stru ctu red and d ev e lop ed b y them . Such p eop le a re a ls o the votin g m a jo r ity o f the m u n icip a lity . A t tim es what this m a jo r ita r ia n - ind iv idual righ ts eth ic c r e a te s w ill in con v en ien ce oth ers by the fa ct that th ese oth ers do not en joy the sam e advantages c r e a te d b y the m a jo r ity . W hen such c a s e s have co m e b e fo r e this C ou rt the co n c lu s io n s d e liv e re d have a lm o st u n an im ou sly c o n c u r r e d in the a ction s o f the co n tro llin g m a jo r ity . The p ro b le m s fa c in g the C ou rt reg a rd in g c o n f lic ts in the above a re a s h ave , o f c o u r s e , b een m o re co m p le x than the a b s tra c t m o d e l. In cre a s in g ly those d isadvan taged , even w ithout any o v e r t state a ction , a re the m e m b e rs o f a s in g le r a c ia l c la s s . Thus e v e ry c la im o f an e co n o m ic or s o c ia l den ia l b e c o m e s , at its c o r e , a ch a rg e o f r a c ia l d is c r im in a tion . The Suprem e C ou rt has not, h o w e v e r , seen fit to le s s e n its g ra sp o f what is tru ly at stake in such situ a tion s. The righ t to attend a ce r ta in sch o o l or a ce r ta in s c h o o l d is t r ic t , as w e ll as to liv e in a ce r ta in c ity , c a r r ie s w ith it a p r ic e tag. Such a c o s t a ffe c ts both p a rties at in te re s t . The f ir s t c o s t r e fe r s to the con stan t open la d d er o f s o c ia l m o b ility w hich m ust be kept open. Thus the co n tro llin g ethic m ay not a b so lu te ly b lo ck any r is e up the lad der b y a m e m b e r o f an u n d es ired r a c e . 27 The secon d c o s t , h o w e v e r , is the true cru x o f the m y ria d o f c a s e s w hich have co m e b e fo r e the Suprem e C ou rt on an equal p ro te ct io n th eory . The m a jo r ita r ia n co n tr o l grou p has the in h eren t righ t to d e term in e th eir own ind iv idual and c o l le c t iv e d e s t in ie s . T h ose s o c ia l ly le s s fortunate m ay m ove into this co n tr o l grou p but only as they in d iv id u a lly r is e . The C ou rt has re fu se d to b e co m e a too l fo r s o c ia l ch an ge . To do so w ould s tron g ly burden th ose w ho do m o re to an a rea s p e c if ic a l ly fo r the b en e fit o f its s c h o o ls , h om es or jo b s . The b en e fit to s o c ia l ly d ep riv ed grou ps w ould not be equal to the stra in o f d is lo ca t io n fo rm e d i f equality in fa ct b e ca m e the n o rm b y w hich the Suprem e C ou rt w ould have to judge each c a s e . A quick rev iew o f re ce n t c a s e s w ill am ply d em on stra te this ba lan cin g test p re se n tly u sed b y the Suprem e C ou rt. The point has con tin u a lly been m ade that h o u s ing is a p r im e com pon en t in the e levation o f d i s advantaged r a c e s . Often b etter liv ing con d it ion s , b e tte r s ch o o ls and jo b s fo llow the co n stru ct io n o f new (usually suburban) h ou sin g . It w ould th e re fo re s e e m - - i f the equality eth ic w e re d om in a n t--th a t the ju d ic ia ry w ould con s is ten tly d e fea t any attem pts to re m o v e th ese a ffluent a rea s fr o m co n tr o l by the m a jo r ita r ia n eth ic. Such is not, h o w e v e r , the c a s e . In Jam es v . V a lt ie r r a , 402 U .S . 137 (1970), the Suprem e C ou rt upheld C a lifo rn ia 's A r t ic le X X X IV w hich m ade a re fe ren d u m n e c e s s a r y fo r a ll lo w - ren t public housing p r o je c t s . Quite c le a r ly m in o r i ties w ould have th eir a b ility to enter these p la ces o f a b e tter e x is ten ce cu rta iled by the r igh t o f the p eop le to v ote aga inst public housing . Ju stice B la ck , w ho d issen ted in R e itm a n , su p ra , w ro te the m a jo r ity opin ion w hich held that "p r o v is io n s for re feren d u m s d em on stra te devotion to d e m o c ra cy , 2 8 not to b ia s , d is cr im in a tio n or p r e ju d ice . " Jam es v . V a lt ie r r a , su p ra , 402 U .S . at 141. M ost im p orta n tly , h o w e v e r , w as the co n tr o l ov er th e ir own liv e s the m a jo r ity opin ion u n d erstood as the ce n tra l re a so n to uphold the re fe ren d u m : This p ro ce d u re en su res that a ll the p eop le o f a com m u n ity w ill have a v o ic e in a d e c is io n w h ich m ay lead to la rg e exp en d itu res o f lo c a l g overn m en ta l funds fo r in c r e a s e d pu b lic s e r v ic e s and to low er tax rev en u es . It g iv es them a v o ic e in d e c is io n s that w ill e f fe c t the future d ev e lop m en t o f th eir own co m m u n ity . Id . at 143 (em ph asis su p p lied ). The ca p w as put upon this th e o ry when in L in d sey v . N o rm e t, 405 U .S . 56 (1972), upon the com p la in t o f tenants that they w e re in danger o f be in g e v icte d under an un con stitu tion a l statute, the S uprem e C ou rt noted that housing w as not a con stitu tion a l r igh t. _Id. at 74. T hus, n eith er the righ t to equal h ousing n or the r igh t to adequate housing p er se is guaranteed b y the con stitu tion . F o llow in g such a con cep tu a l tra il w as the d e c is io n o f San A ntonio S ch oo l D is t r ic t v . R o d r ig u e z , su p ra . In R od rig u ez the C ou rt upheld the r igh t o f lo c a l s ch o o l d is tr ic t s to be funded in the trad ition a l m anner o f lo c a l p ro p e rty ta x es . The im p orta n ce o f this d e c is io n cannot b e ov ersta ted b e ca u se it d ir e c t ly c o n tr o ls the co n s id e ra tio n s w hich should be used in d ecid in g the instant c a s e . The R od rig u ez C ou rt o ffe re d a v e r y b roa d opin ion with two m ain points each o f w h ich furth er a ffirm s the th eory p os ited a bove . The f ir s t point is that w h ere a d ep riv a tion is b a se d upon w ealth no rem ed y w ill be ava ilab le u n less a co m p le te d ep riv a tion is ev ident: 29 The in d iv id u a ls , or grou ps o f in d iv id u a ls , w ho con stitu ted the c la s s d is cr im in a te d aga in st in our p r io r c a s e s sh ared two d istingu ish in g c h a r a c t e r is t ic s : b e ca u se o f their im p ecu n ity they w e r e c o m p le te ly unable to pay fo r som e d e s ire d b en e fit , and as a co n se q u e n ce , they sustained an abso lu te dep riva tion o f a m eaningfu l o p p o r tunity to en joy that b en e fit . Id . at 20. Thus i f no de ju re seg reg a tion is found no c la im m ay b e m ade that th ose a lleg ed ly d is c r im inated a ga in st w e re w ithout any adequate s c h o o ls . The secon d point w as one ech oed in J a m e s , su p ra , and W rig h t, su p ra : the p a rtic ip a tion in on e 's own lo c a l a ffa ir s : The T exas sy s te m o f s c h o o l fin an ce is re s p o n s iv e to th ese two f o r c e s . W hile a s s u r ing a b a s ic education fo r e v e ry ch ild in the State, it p e rm its and en cou ra g es a la rg e m e a s u re o f p a rtic ip a tion in and co n tro l o f each d is t r ic t 's s ch o o ls at the lo c a l le v e l. In an era that has w itn essed a co n s is te n t trend tow ard ce n tra liza tio n o f the functions o f govern m en t, lo c a l sharing o f re s p o n s ib ility fo r public ed u ca tion has su rv iv ed . The m e r it o f lo c a l co n tro l w as re co g n iz e d la s t T erm in both the m a jo r ity and d issen tin g opinions in W right v . C ou n cil o f the C ity o f E m p o r ia , 407 U .S . 451 (1972). M R . JUSTICE STE W A R T stated th ere that " [d j i r e c t c o n tr o l over d e c is io n s v ita lly a f fe c t ing the education o f o n e 's ch ild ren is a need that is s tron g ly fe lt in our s o c ie ty . " I d . , at 469 . THE CH IEF JUSTICE, in h is d issen t, a g reed that " [ l jo c a l co n tr o l is not only v ita l to continued public support o f the s c h o o ls , but 30 it is o f o v err id in g im p o rta n ce fr o m an e d u ca tion a l standpoint as w e ll . " Id . , at 478. The p e r s is te n c e o f a ttachm ent to g overn m en t at the lo w e st le v e l w h ere edu cation is co n ce rn e d r e f le c ts the depth o f co m m itm en t o f its su p p o r te r s . In p a rt, lo c a l c o n tr o l m ea n s , as P r o fe s s o r C o lem a n su g g ests , the fr e e d o m to devote m o re m on ey to the education o f on e 's ch ild re n . E qually im p orta n t, h o w e v e r , is the opportunity it o ffe r s fo r p a rtic ip a tion in the d e c is io n -m a k in g p r o c e s s that d e te rm in es how th ose lo c a l tax d o lla rs w ill b e spent. E ach lo c a lity is fr e e to ta ilo r lo c a l p ro g ra m s to lo c a l n eed s . P lu r a lis m a ls o a ffo rd s som e op portun ity fo r ex p erim en ta tion , in n ovation , and a healthy com p etit ion fo r edu cation a l e x c e l le n ce . An ana logy to the N ation -S tate r e la tion sh ip in our fe d e ra l sy s te m seem s uniquely a p p ro p r ia te . M r. J u stice B ra n d eis id en tified as one o f the p e cu lia r strengths o f our fo r m of g overn m en t each S ta te 's fr e e d o m to " s e r v e as a la b o ra to ry ; and try n ove l s o c ia l and e co n o m ic e x p e r im e n ts . " No a rea o f s o c ia l c o n c e r n stands to p r o fit m o re fr o m a m u ltip lic ity o f v iew poin ts and fr o m a d iv e rs ity o f a p p roa ch es than does pu b lic edu cation . R o d r ig u e z , su p ra , 411 U .S . at 4 9 -5 0 . Thus a d is tin ct p rem iu m is p la ced upon the r igh t o f the m a jo r ity to c o n tr o l the p a ce and d ir e c t io n o f th eir own l iv e s . M inus an obviou s d is cr im in a tio n aga inst a r a c ia l g rou p , co u r ts w ill not seek to b a la n ce "n a tu ra l" s o c ia l in eq u a lit ie s . T h ese sam e co n s id e ra tio n s h ave ech oed throughout past s ch o o l d e se g re g a tio n c a s e s . No one has been held to have the r igh t to an edu cation a l 31 e x p e r ie n ce o ffe re d to another fa m ily that ex ists in another town. W hether a grou p is d is cr im in a te d aga in st due to th e ir p ov erty even when a s s o c ia te d w ith ra c e as long as no o v e rt (de ju re ) d is c r im in a tion is the ca u se o f a la ck o f s o c ia l a m e n it ie s , no con stitu tion a l ca u se o f a ction w ill be found. The ru le put forth in D eal I, su p ra , is s t ill good law : W e h old that th ere is no con stitu tion a l duty on the part o f the B oa rd to bus N eg ro or w hite ch ild re n out o f th eir n e igh b orh ood s or to tra n s fe r c la s s e s fo r the so le p u rpose o f a llev ia tin g r a c ia l im b a la n ce that it did not ca u se , n or is th ere a lik e duty to s e le c t new s ch o o l s ites s o le ly in fu rth era n ce o f such a p u rp ose . Id . at 61. T o h o ld o th erw ise in the instant ca s e w ould be to s e r io u s ly in fr in g e upon the r igh t o f p eop le to a ff irm a tiv e ly stru ctu re their own liv e s . A le g is la t iv e answ er is quite ob v iou sly needed fo r this p ro b le m . To re m o v e the r igh t o f p eop le to liv e n ear the s ch o o ls to w h ich they w ish to send their ch ild re n , and w hich m ay have been the re a so n fo r their m ove th ere in it ia lly , w ould b e to s e v e r e ly re ta rd in vo lv em en t in lo c a l a ffa ir s , and m o re im portan tly it w ould r e s t r ic t m a jo r ita r ia n co n tro l. C le a r ly past d e c is io n s have not sought such a s o lu tion to co m p le x s o c ia l p ro b le m s . 32 CONCLUSION A d e s e g re g a tio n o rd e r that in e f fe c t r e o r g a n iz e s lo c a l units o f g overn m en t is v io la t iv e o f the b a s ic con stitu tion a l p r in c ip le o f fe d e r a lis m . The fa ilu re o f the o rd e r to r e c o g n iz e the re s e rv a t io n o f p ow ers to state g overn m en t not on ly u n d erm in es such g overn m en t a b s tra c t ly but n ega tiv es lo c a l d e m o c r a c y and h om e r u le . In the U nited States lo c a l s e lf -g o v e r n m e n t has been a tra d ition s in ce c o lo n ia l t im e s . Indeed, the d e m o c r a c y o f m any co u n tie s , tow ns, c i t ie s , v illa g e s and s c h o o l d is tr ic t s a n te -d a te the d e m o c r a c y o f the s e v e r a l states and o f the fe d e r a l g o v e r n m ent. M any o f the states o f the union have adopted con stitu tion a l p ro v is io n s a llow in g lo c a l units o f g overn m en t to resh a p e th eir own ch a r te rs b y the adoption o f ch a r te r o rd in a n ce s . New O rleans W a terw ork s C o . v . New O r le a n s , 164 U .S . 471 (1896); W alla W alla v s . W alla W alla W ater C o. , 172 U .S . 1 (1898). The A m e rica n tra d ition fa v o r ing lo c a l d e m o c r a c y is so stron g that w ith in the la s t two d eca d es the m a jo r ity o f p eop le in m e t r o politan a re a s have g ra v ita ted to suburban co m m u n i ties w h ere th eir p e rso n a l p a rtic ip a tion in lo c a l g overn m en t is c lo s e , d ir e c t and m ean in gfu l. This pattern o f g overn m en t is p r e c is e ly the pattern en v isa g ed b y the fe d e ra l con stitu tion in r e s e r v in g n on - de legated p ow ers to the states and the p e o p le . X A m endm ent, C onstitu tion o f the United S ta tes . Knapp v s . S ch w e itz e r , 357 U .S . 371 (1958); United States v . B u t le r , 297 U .S . 1 (1936). The g oa l o f d e se g re g a tio n should not be u sed as a c loa k to d is gu ise a v io la tion o f lo c a l autonom y esta b lish ed b y state authority . 33 It has been fash ion ab le in the la s t two d eca d es to ig n o re the 10th A m endm ent. H ow ev er , it is the co r n e rs to n e o f lo c a l autonom y fo r states and m u n i c ip a lit ie s . It m u st on ce again be ack n ow ledged and re v ita liz e d . If the ru lin gs o f the d is t r ic t co u r t and the co u r t o f appea ls a re upheld the A m endm ent w ill b e v io la te d . F or the stated rea son s the d e c is io n o f the Sixth C ir cu it C ou rt o f A ppeals should be r e v e r s e d . R e sp e ctfu lly subm itted , H ARO LD H. FUHRMAN 4455 W est B ra d ley R oad M ilw aukee, W iscon s in 53223 A ttorn ey fo r A m icu s C u riae N ational Suburban L eague, Ltd. Legal Briefs Company, 2700 Laura Lane, Middleton, Wisconsin 53562