Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae and Brief for National Suburban League

    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