North Little Rock, AK Board of Education v. Davis Brief in Opposition

    No. 81-2316

I n  the

i ’upnmtr Gkwrt of tljp $nttpi& IhatPis
October T eem, 1981

T he Board oe Education oe the N orth L ittle R ock, 
A rkansas, School District, et ah,

Petitioners,
v.

R obert J. Davis and L obene Joshua,

Respondents,

on  p e t it io n  for  a  w r it  of certio rari to t h e  u n it e d  states  
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION

Jack Greenberg 
James M. N abrit, I I I  
B ill  L ann  L ee*
T heodore M. Shaw 

Suite 2030 
10 Columbus Circle 
N ew  York , New  Y ork  10019 
(212) 586-8397

John W. W alker 
Suite 119
F irs t  National Bank Build ing 
L ittle  Rock, Arkansas 72201 
(501) 374-3758

Attorneys for Respondents 

*  Counsel o f Record



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

STATEMENT .............................................  1

The Current  P roceed ings  ........................ 1

The P r i o r  H i s t o r y  o f  the Case . . . . . .  5

REASONS TO DENY THE WRIT ...................... 9

CONCLUSION .................................................... 15

l



TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Board o f  Educat ion o f  North L i t t l e
Rock, Arkansas,  School  D i s t r i c t
v. Davi s ,  50 U.S.L.W. 3272
(1981) ..........................................................  9

Columbus Board o f  Educat ion v. Penick,
433 U.S. 499 ( 1 979 ) ..............................  13

Davis v. Board o f  Educat ion o f  North 
L i t t l e  Rock, Arkansas,  School  
D i s t r i c t ,  328 F. Supp. 1197 
(E.D. Ark.  1971) ...................  6

Davis v. Board o f  Educat ion o f  North 
L i t t l e  Rock, Arkansas,  School  
D i s t r i c t ,  449 F.2d 500 (8th 
C i r .  1971) (en banc) ...................  6

Davis v.  Board o f  Educat ion o f  North 
L i t t l e  Rock, Arkansas,  School  
D i s t r i c t ,  362 F. Supp. 730 
(E.D. Ark.  1 973 ) .............................. .. 6

Davis v. Board o f  Educat ion o f  North 
L i t t l e  Rock, Arkansas,  School  
D i s t r i c t ,  635 F.2d 730 (8th 
C i r .  1980),  c e r t ,  d e n i e d , 50 
U.S.L.W. 3272 (1 981 ) ............    6,7

Davis v. Board o f  Educat ion o f  North 
L i t t l e  Rock, Arkansas,  School  
D i s t r i c t ,  520 F. Supp. 108 
(E.D. Ark.  1981 ) .................................... 6

-  i  i  -

Page



Paqe

Davis v. Board o f  Educat ion o f  North 
L i t t l e  Rock, Arkansas,  School  
D i s t r i c t ,  674 F.2d 684 (8th 
C i r .  1 982 ) .......................... .......................  6

F lax  v.  P o t t s ,  313 F.2d 284 (5th
C i r .  1 963 ) ........... ......................................  14

Graves v. Board o f  Educat ion o f  North 
L i t t l e  Rock, Arkansas,  School  
D i s t r i c t ,  299 F. Supp. 843 (E.D.
Ark.  1 969) .................................................  6

Green v. School  Board o f  New Kent
County, 391 U.S 430 ( 1 968) ...............  12

Keyes v. School  D i s t r i c t  No. 1, 413
U.S. 1 89 ( 1 973 ) ................... ................... 13

Lee v. Macon County Board o f  Educat ion,
584 F . 2d 78 (5th C i r .  1 978 ) .............  14

Pasadena C i t y  Board o f  Educat ion v.
Spang ler ,  427 U.S 424 (1976) ...........  14

Raney v. Board o f  Educat ion,  391 U.S.
443 ( 1 968 ) .................................................. 12

Rogers v. Paul ,  382 U.S 198 (1965) ......... 3,14

Swann v.  Char lo t t e -Meck lenburg  Board o f
Educat ion,  402 U.S 1, ( 197 1 ) ........... .. 13

United S ta t e s  v. S ta te  o f  Texas,  509
F . 2d 192 (5th C i r .  1 975 ) ___________  14

i n



Page

United S ta t e s  v. Texas Educat ion
Agency,  647 F.2d 504 .(5th C i r .
1981) .............................. .........................  12

Youngblood v. Board o f  P u b l i c
I n s t r u c t i o n ,  448 F.2d 770 (5th
C i r .  1971) ............... ............ .............. .. 14

S ta tu t es  and Rules

Redera l  Rule o f  C i v i l  Procedure 23 . .  3,10

IV



No. 81-2316

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

. October  Term, 1981

THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE NORTH 
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, SCHOOL 
DISTRICT, e t  a l . ,

P e t i t  l o n e r s ,

v.

ROBERT J. DAVIS and LORENE JOSHUA,

Respondents.

On P e t i t i o n  f o r  a Wri t  o f  C e r t i o r a r i  t o  
The Uni ted S ta t e s  Court o f  Appeals  

For The Eighth C i r c u i t

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION

STATEMENT

The Current  P roceedings

The most r e c e n t  p r o c e e d i n g s  in t h i s  

s c h o o l  d e s e g r e g a t i o n  case  i n v o l v i n g  the  

p u b l i c  s c h o o l s  o f  N o r t h  L i t t l e  R o c k ,



2

A r k a n s a s  w e r e  i n i t i a t e d  by t h e  s c h o o l  

boa rd ' s  motion to  r e v i s e  the court  approved 

d e s e g r e ga t i on  p lan to  enable  the board to  

c l o s e  one o f  i t s  s c h o o l s .  Over  r e s p o n ­

d en t s '  o b j e c t i o n s ,  both courts below upheld 

the  b o a r d ' s  r i g h t  t o  make the  r e q u e s t e d  

changes on the me r i t s ,  wh i l e  r e j e c t i n g  the 

boa rd ' s  arguments that  respondent had no 

s t a n d i n g  t o  c o n t e s t  the  m o d i f i c a t i o n  o f  

the court  approved des e g r e ga t i on  plan and 

tha t  u n i t a r y  s ta tus  had been ach ieved  when 

t h e  d e s e g r e g a t i o n  p l a n  was i n i t i a l l y  

implemented in 1972. Respondent has not 

sought r ev i ew  o f  the unfavorab le  d e c i s i o n  

below.

Thus the case presents  the anomalous 

s i t u a t i o n  o f  a school  board, the success ­

f u l  p a r t y  below, seeking  re v i ew  o f  a d e c i ­

s i on  which rul ed  in the board ' s  f a v o r  on

the me r i t s .



- 3 -

The p e t i t i o n  p r e s e n t l y  b e f o r e  t h i s  

Court steins from a motion f i l e d  on May 22, 

1981 by the  board  s e e k i n g  a p p r o v a l  o f  a 

p lan t o  c l o s e  a d i s t r i c t - w i d e  seventh grade 

c e n t e r  a t  f o r m e r l y  b l a c k  C e n t r a l  J u n i o r  

High Schoo l .  P l a i n t  i f f - i n t e r v e n o r  Lorene 

Joshua unsucces s fu l l y  opposed t h i s  motion 

on the grounds tha t  the proposed c l o s i n g  

would impose d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e  t r a n s p o r t a ­

t i o n  burdens on black students and cont inue 

an i l l e g a l  p o l i c y  o f  d i s c r i m i n a t o r i l y  c l o s ­

ing educa t i ona l  f a c i l i t i e s  in black areas.

The board a l s o  r e i t e r a t e d  arguments made
1/

p r e v i o u s l y  that  Mrs. Joshua- lacked s tand­

ing t o  cont es t  the c l o s i n g  o f  the seventh

]_/ The a c t i o n  was o r i g i n a l l y  f i l e d  by 
C o rn e l l  Graves as a c l a s s  a c t i on  pursuant 
to  Fed. R. C i v .  P. 23 (a )  and ( b ) ( 2 ) .  A l ­
though a c la ss  has never  f o rm a l l y  been c e r ­
t i f i e d  the courts below have t r e a t e d  th i s  
l i t i g a t i o n  as a c l a s s  a c t i on .  The d i s t r i c t  
court  and the court  o f  appeals have p e r m i t ­
ted l i b e r a l  s u b s t i t u t i o n  o f  p l a i n t i f f s .  C f . 
Rogers v. P a u l , 382 U.S. 198 (1965) .  On



4

grade c en t e r  because none o f  her c h i l d r e n  

a t t e n d e d  t h a t  g r a d e  in  1981 and t h a t  

u n i t a r y  s ta tus  in e f f e c t  had been ach ieved  

long ago so that  j u d i c i a l  supe r v i s i on  was 

unnecessary.  The d i s t r i c t  court  found i t  

s u f f i c i e n t  t h a t  she c u r r e n t l y  had t h r e e  

c h i l d r e n  in  t h e  s c h o o l  s y s t e m ,  in  t h e  

second,  f i f t h  and t enth grades.  Cont inuing 

j u r i s d i c t i o n  was found. P l a i n t  i f f - i n t e r -  

venor Joshua appealed the  c l o s i n g  o f  the 

cen te r ,

The Cour t  o f  A p p e a l s  a f f i r m e d .  The 

c o u r t  a l s o  s t a t e d  t h a t  i t  c l e a r  t h a t  

p l a i n t i f f  had s tanding "wi th  regard to  the 

e n t i r e  d e s eg r ega t i on  s u i t "  and that  there

_1_/ cont inued

A p r i l  22, 1977, the d i s t r i c t  court  a l l owed
Lorene Joshua, as mother and next  f r i e n d  o f  
f ou r  c h i l d r e n  e n r o l l e d  in the North L i t t l e  
Rock p u b l i c  schoo l s ,  t o  be su b s t i tu t ed  f o r  
Rober t  J. Dav is ,  who had moved away from 
N o r th  L i t t l e  Rock.  D a v i s  had su cc eed ed  
Graves,  whose c h i l d r e n  had e a r l i e r  g rad­
uated from the system.



5

was no need  f o r  p u p i l s  in  e a ch  g r a d e  

l e v e l  t o  be p l a i n t i f f s .  The court  found 

t h a t  a c a s e  o r  c o n t r o v e r s y  s u f f i c i e n t  

t o  s a t i s f y  the  A r t i c l e  I I I  r e q u i r e m e n t  

cont inued t o  e x i s t  u n t i l  the d i s t r i c t  court  

determined that  a un i t a ry  system o f  educa­

t i o n  had been achieved  in compl iance with 

the p r i o r  court  o rde rs .

The P r i o r  H i s t o r y  o f  the Case

The board  f i l e d  a p e t i t i o n  f o r  c e r ­

t i o r a r i  r a i s i n g  the same ques t i ons  in 1981, 

No. 80-1 83 1 , and t h i s  Court denied i t  on 

O c t o b e r  13, 1981.  50 U . S . L . W .  3272.

Because  the  case  i n v o l v e s  an e f f o r t  t o  

r e l i t i g a t e  mat ters  p r e v i o u s l y  dec ided in 

e a r l i e r  p roceed ings  we se t  f o r t h  below a 

b r i e f  h i s t o r y  o f  the case.

T h i s  d e s e g r e g a t i o n  a c t i o n  was i n i ­

t i a t e d  in 1968 by black students and t h e i r  

p a r e n t s .  I n  1969 t h e  d i s t r i c t  c o u r t



6

en jo in ed  the board from f u r t h e r  ma in ta in ­

ing i t s  u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  dual  schoo l  system 

and o r d e r e d  r e l i e f .  G ra ve s  v.  Board o f  

E d u c a t i o n  o f  N o r th  L i t t l e  Rock, Arkansas ,

S c h o o l  D i s t r i c t , 299 F. Supp. 843 (E .D.
2/

A rk .  1 969 ) .  i n  1971, the  E i g h t h  C i r ­

c u i t  o r d e r e d  i m p l e m e n t a t i o n  d u r in g  the  

1 972-73 school  year  o f  a plan which would 

d e s e g r e g a t e  s c h o o l s ,  f a c u l t y  and s t a f f .  

Davis v. Board o f  Educat ion o f  North L i t t l e

2_/ T h i s  l i t i g a t i o n  has  p r o d u c e d  f i v e  
r epo r t ed  op in ions  in the d i s t r i c t  court ,  
t h r e e  in  the  c o u r t  o f  a p p e a l s ,  and one 
d e n i a l  o f  a p e t i t i o n  f o r  c e r t i o r a r i  in t h i s  
C o u r t :  Grave s  v .  Board o f  E d u c a t i o n  o f
No r t h  L i t t l e  R o c k ,__Arkansas  ,__S c h o o l  D i s ­
t r i c t , 299 F. Supp. 843 (E.D. Ark.  1969); 
302 F. Supp. 136 (E.D. Ark.  1969);  Davis v . 
Board o f  E d u c a t i o n  o f  No r t h  L i t t l e  Rock ,
A r k a n s a s ,__S c h o o l  D i s t r i c t , 328 F. Supp.
1 1~97 (E.D. Ark.  1971);  449 F.2d 500 (8th
C i r .  1971) (en b a n c ) ; 362 F. Supp. 730 
(E.D. Ark.  1 973 ) ;  635 F.2d 730 (8th C i r .
1 9 8 0 ) ,  c e r t ^ __d je n _i e d , 50 U . S . L . W .  3272
(1981) (Rhenquist ,  J. d i s s e n t i n g ) ;  520 F. 
Supp. 108 (E.D. Ark.  1981);  674 F.2d 684 
(8th C i r .  1982).



7

Rock,  449 F .2 d 500 { 8 t h  C i r .  1971) (en 

banc  ) . The  d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  r e t a i n e d  

j u r i s d i c t i o n .

On A p r i l  30, 1975 p l a i n t i f f s  moved f o r  

f u r t h e r  r e l i e f ,  s eek ing ,  i n t e r  a l i a , f u r ­

the r  f a c u l t y  and s t a f f  d e s eg r ega t i on  and a 

r educ t i on  in the burden o f  t r a n s p o r t a t i o n  

imposed upon black students.  The d i s t r i c t  

c o u r t  r u l e d  i n  f a v o r  o f  p l a i n t i f f s  on 

September 13, 1977 a f t e r  p e r m i t t i n g  Mrs.

Joshua 's  i n t e r v e n t i o n ,  but the p r e s i d in g  

judge d i ed  b e f o r e  r u l i n g  on motions by the 

b o a r d  t o  v a c a t e  a l l  p r i o r  d e c r e e s  and 

o rders  o f  the d i s t r i c t  court  on j u r i s d i c ­

t i o n a l  grounds. The d i s t r i c t  court  even­

t u a l l y  denied the Board ' s  motions on June 

29, 1979. On appeal ,  the Eighth C i r c u i t

a f f i r m e d  the  d i s t r i c t  c o u r t ' s  d e c i s i o n  

wi thout  d i s s e n t .  Davis v. Board o f  Educa­

t i o n o f  N o r t h  L i t t l e  Rock, Arkansas , 635

F,2d 730 (1980) .



With regard to  f a c u l t y  and s t a f f ,  the 

C o u r t  o f  A p p e a l s  u p h e l d  t h e  d i s t r i c t  

c o u r t ' s  f i n d i n g  tha t  the school  d i s t r i c t  

had not e r a d i c a t e d  a l l  v e s t i g e s  o f  d i s c r i m ­

i n a t i o n  and t h a t  " [m ]o re  rema ins  t o  be 

accompl ished b e f o r e  i t  can be sa id  tha t  the 

North L i t t l e  Rock School  D i s t r i c t  i s  f u l l y  

i n t e g r a t e d . "  635 F.2d at  733. The court  

a l s o  found tha t  " the  r ecord  i s  r e p l e t e  wi th 

ev idence  o f  r a c i a l  d i s p a r i t i e s "  in e x t r a ­

c u r r i c u l a r  a c t i v i t i e s  and d i s c i p l i n a r y  

s u s p e n s i o n s ,  which " can be d r a m a t i c a l l y  

improved i f  t h i s  C o u r t ' s  e a r l i e r  mandate, 

r e q u i r i n g  a n o n r a c i a l l y  i d e n t i f i a b l e  

f a c u l t y  and s t a f f  a t  e v e r y  l e v e l  o f  the  

schoo l  system is prompt ly implemented. " 635 

F.2d at 733. The court  remanded the case 

t o  t h e  d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  w i t h  o r d e r s  t o  

" r e t a i n  j u r i s d i c t i o n  u n t i l  such t ime as the 

N o r t h  L i t t l e  Rock  S c h o o l  D i s t r i c t  i s

thoroughly integrated. Id.



9

The boa rd ' s  p e t i t i o n  f o r  c e r t i o r a r i  t o  

t h i s  Court ,  which r a i s e d  the same ques t i ons  

as the board seeks to  p resent  by i t s  p r e s ­

ent  p e t i t i o n ,  was denied.  Board o f  Educa­

t i o n  o f  North L i t t l e  Rock, Arkansas,  School  

D i s t r i c t  v. D a v i s , 50 U.S.L.W. 3272 (1981)

(Rhenquist ,  J . ,  d i s s e n t i n g ) .

REASONS TO DENY THE WRIT

1. L a s t  t e r m ,  t h i s  C o u r t  d e n i e d

c e r t i o r a r i  t o  r e v i e w  the  same q u e s t i o n s
. . 3/

presented  in the in s tan t  p e t i t i o n . -  The

3/ The ques t i ons  presented  in the p e t i ­
t i o n  in 80-1831 were:

(1)  Does C o n s t i tu t i o n  ve s t  d i s t r i c t  court  
w i th  j u r i s d i c t i o n  to  c o n t i n u e  i t s  
s u p e r v i s i o n  o f  a s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t ' s  
c o n t i n u e d  o p e r a t i o n s ,  i n c l u d i n g  
impos i t i on  o f  mandatory c r o s s - d i s t r i c t  
bus i ng  and m a n i p u l a t i o n  o f  s c h o o l  
assignments to  ach ieve  r a c i a l  balance 
where  d i s t r i c t  has o p e r a t e d  c o u r t -  
a p p r o v e d  r a c i a l l y  u n i t a r y  s c h o o l  
system s ince  1972?



10 -

record  r e v e a l s  tha t  s ince  then the board 

has presented  no new f a c t u a l  ev idence  in 

support  o f  i t s  cont en t i ons  or  at tempted to  

show m a t e r i a l  change o f  c i rcumstances :  the

record  on the f a i l u r e to  ach ieve un i t a ry

s ta tus  in 1 972 and Mrs . Joshua 's standing

i s  e x a c t l y the same as when t h i s case was

l a s t  be f o r e  the Court .  Below, the board 

mere l y reargued ques t i ons  p r e v i o u s l y  and 

c o n c l u s i v e l y  dec ided aga ins t  i t  by the two 

lower  cour ts .  Nor does the in s tan t  p e t i ­

t i o n  make any argument in b e h a l f  o f  r ev i ew  

not p r e v i o u s l y  made in the pr ev i ous  p e t i -  

t  ion.

3/ cont inued

(2 )  I s  d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  a t  l i b e r t y  t o  
t r e a t  s u i t  f i l e d  in 1 968 but n e v e r  
c e r t i f i e d  under Fed. R. C i v .  P. 23 as 
c l a s s  a c t i on  in o rder  t o  susta in  i t s  
cont inued su p e r v i s i o n  o f  ope ra t i on  o f  
s c h o o l  d i s t r i c t  and t o  s u m m a r i l y  
s u b s t i t u t e  new nominal p l a i n t i f f s  from 
t ime to  t ime t o  perpe tuate  i t s  j u r i s ­
d i c t i o n  in  r e s p o n s e  t o  c l a i m  o f  
mootness  f o r  l a c k  o f  any p l a i n t i f f  
w i th  stake in i t s  outcome?



Thus,  t h e r e  s i m p l y  i s  no r e as on  f o r  

the Court t o  r e c on s id e r  i t s  p r i o r  d e n i a l  o f  

the w r i t .

2. P e t i t i o n e r  was the  p r e v a i l i n g  

p a r t y  below on the matters  a c t u a l l y  l i t i ­

gated  and seeks no change in the r e s u l t s  

ob ta ined  below as to  those matters .  P e t i ­

t i o n e r  seeks  o n l y  a change in the  l e g a l  

theory  o f  the d e c i s i o n s  below in o rder  t o  

a f f e c t  the  d i s p o s i t i o n  o f  m a t t e r s  o t h e r  

t h a n  t h o s e  a c t u a l l y  c o n s i d e r e d  by t h e  

courts  below.

3. Wi th  r e s p e c t  t o  the  m e r i t s  o f  

the ru l i n g  o f  the two courts below on the 

achievement o f  un i t a ry  s t a tu t e  and s tand­

in g ,  we r e f e r  the  Cour t  t o  the  b r i e f  in 

o p p o s i t i o n  f i l e d  in No. 80-1331. However, 

we note that  there  was no abuse o f  e q u i t a ­

b l e  d i s c r e t i o n  by the courts  below in r u l ­

ing  t h a t  the  board  has f a i l e d  t o  a t t a i n  

un i t a ry  s t a tus .  The board has not sought



12 -

an e v i d e n t i a r y  h e a r i n g  much l e s s  demon­

s t r a t e d  tha t  mere i n i t i a l  implementat ion 

o f  the d e s e g r e ga t i on  p lan in the 1 972-73 

schoo l  year  r e s u l t e d  in a f u l l  t r a n s i t i o n  

t o  a r a c i a l l y  n o n d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  s c h o o l  

system. The ru l e  i s  that  the e f f i c a c y  o f  a

d e s e g r e g a t i o n  remedy must be p r o v e d  in 
4/

p r a c t i c e .  As l a t e  as 1 980, the Court o f

Appea ls ,  r e f e r r i n g  s p e c i f i c a l l y  t o  f a c u l t y

and s t a f f  s e g r e g a t i o n  and u t i l i z a t i o n  o f

f a c i l i t i e s ,  s t a t ed  that  " [m jo r e  remains to

be accompl ished b e f o r e  i t  can be sa id  tha t

the North L i t t l e  Rock School  D i s t r i c t  is
5/

f u l l y  i n t e g r a t e d .  " 635 F . 2d a t  733 .

4/ E . g . , Raney v .  Board o f  E d u c a t i o n , 
391 U.S. 443, 449 (1968) ;  Green v.  School  
Board o f  New Kent  C o u n t y , 391 U.S.  430, 
439 (1968) ;  see a l s o  Uni ted S ta t es  v. Texas 
Educat ion Agency , 647 F.2d 504, 508-09 (5th 
C i r .  1981).

5/ The Court has r e p e a t e d l y  ru l ed  tha t  
f a c u l t y  and s t a f f  assignment and u t i l i z a ­
t i o n  o f  f a c i l i t i e s  p r e s e n t  i s s u e s  which



13

In  i t s  most r e c e n t  o p i n i o n ,  the  E i g h t h

C i r c u i t  e x p r e s s l y  r e c o g n i z e d  t h e  need

f o r  the c o u r t ' s  " cont inu ing  j u r i s d i c t i o n

o v e r  d e s e g r e g a t i o n "  and t h a t  " [ t ] h i  s

case  sh ou ld  not  be d i s m i s s e d  and a case

o r  ‘ c o n t r o v e r s y  s u f f i c i e n t  t o  s a t i s f y

A r t i c l e  I I I  w i l l  e x i s t  u n t i l  such t ime

as t h e  d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  d e t e r m i n e s  t h a t

a u n i t a r y  sys tem o f  e d u c a t i o n  has been

ach ieved and the North L i t t l e  Rock School

D i s t r i c t  i s  t h o r o u g h l y  i n t e g r a t e d . "  674
6/

F .2d at 689.

5/ cont inued

p r o p e r l y  f a l l  w i t h i n  the  scope  o f  a d e ­
s e g r e g a t i o n  case.  Columbus Board o f  Educa­
t i o n  v. P e n i c k , 443 U.S. 449, 460 (1979) ;  
Keyes  v. School  D i s t r i c t  No. 1 , 4 13 U.S. 
189, 200 (1973) ;  Swann v, Char l o t t e -M eck- 
lenburg Board o f  Educat ion,  402 U.S. 1, 18 
(1971) .

6/ Absent an e v i d e n t i a r y  hear ing  on the 
at ta inment  o f  un i ta ry  s ta tus ,  the e s t a b ­
l i s h e d  p r a c t i c e  i s  that  the d i s t r i c t  court  
should maintain j u r i s d i c t i o n  o f  a school



14

As t o  s t a n d i n g ,  i t  has  l o n g  be e n  

the  r u l e  t h a t  each i n d i v i d u a l  m i n o r i t y  

s t u d e n t  has a r i g h t  t o  a t t e n d  f u l l y  

nond i sc r im ina tory  schoo l s  and standing to  

ch a l l en ge  p a r t i c u l a r  aspec ts  o f  a r a c i a l l y  

se gr ega ted  school  system. E. g . , Rogers v . 

Paul ,  382 U .S.  198, 200 ( 1 9 6 5 ) ;  F l a x  v.

£ o t t s , 313 F .2 d 284 ,  2 8 8 - 8 9  ( 5 t h  C i r .

1963). P e t i t i o n e r  r e l i e s  on Pasadena C i t y  

Board o f  Educat ion v, S p a n g l e r , 427 U.S. 

424, 429-30 (1976) .  In that  case,  p l a i n ­

t i f f s  had graduated from the school  system 

and o n l y  the  i n t e r v e n t i o n  o f  the  U n i t e d  

S ta t e s  kept  the l i t i g a t i o n  from becoming 

moot. The ins tant  case is  d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e

6/ cont inued

d e s e g r e g a t i o n  c a se .  E . g . , Lee  v .  Macon 
County Board o f  E d u c a t i o n , 584 F . 2d  78,
81 (5th C i r .  1978) ;  Uni ted S ta t es  v. S ta t e  
o f  T e x a s , 509 F . 2 d  192,  193 ( 5 t h  C i r .
1975) ;  You ngb lood  v .  Board o f  Pu b l i c  I n ­
s t r u c t i o n , 448 F . 2d 770 (5th C i r .  1971).



15

from Pasadena in that  the d i s t r i c t  court  

a l l owed Mrs. Joshua, a p l a i n t  i f f - i n t e r v e n o r  

wi th  a l i v e  i n t e r e s t  in the c o n t r o v e r s y ,  to  

in te r v ene  over  f i v e  years  ago.

CONCLUSION

The p e t i t i o n  f o r  a w r i t  o f  c e r t i o r a r i  

should be denied.

R e s p e c t f u l l y  submitted,

JACK GREENBERG 
JAMES M. NABRIT, I I I  
BILL LANN LEE*
THEODORE M. SHAW 

Su i t e  2030 
10 Columbus C i r c l e  
New York,  New York 10019 
(212) 586-8397

JOHN W. WALKER 
Su i t e  119
F i r s t  N a t i o n a l  Bank Bu i l d ing  
L i t t l e  Rock, Arkansas 72201 
(501) 374-3758

*Counsel  o f  Record 
A t to rney s  f o r  Respondents



MEILEN PRESS INC. —  N. Y. C. « ^ p * >  219