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

Public Court Documents
February 19, 1974

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

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

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.


Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Return to top