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

Public Court Documents
January 1, 1981

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

Date is approximate.

Cite this item

  • Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. North Little Rock, AK Board of Education v. Davis Brief in Opposition, 1981. e2c5b3de-bf9a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/5703e029-5cbe-4466-9829-52fd7f8f0a24/north-little-rock-ak-board-of-education-v-davis-brief-in-opposition. Accessed July 16, 2025.

    Copied!

    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

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