Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Board Memorandum for the United States

    N o s .  9 4 4  a n d  9 7 2

Jit the Supreme Cfattrt of the United States
, \ j October Term, 1969

R obert Carter, et al., petitioners

'  ■ ' v.

i \
et al.

Derek J erome Singleton, et al., petitioners
r : : V.

J a c k s o n  M unicipal Separate School District

ON PE TITIO N S FOR W R IT S  O F C E R T IO R A R I TO THE UNITED  
ST A FF S c o u r t  o f  a p p e a l s  f o r  TH E F IF T H  CIRCU IT

MEMORANDUM FOR THE UNITED STATES

E R W IN  N. G R ISW O L D ,
Solicitor General. 

J E R R IS  L E O N A R D ,
A ssistant A ttorn ey ,General.



J n  t o  dlmsrt o f t o  H ra M  sta tes
October Term, 1969

No. 944

R obert Carter, et al., petitioners 
v.

W est F eliciana P arish School B oard, et al.

No. 972

Derek Jerome Singleton, et al., petitioners
v.

J ackson Municipal Separate School D istrict

ON PE TITIO N S FO B  W R IT S  OF C E R T IO R A R I TO TH E UNITED  
STATES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R  TH E F IF T H  CIRCUIT

MEMORANDUM FOR THE UNITED STATES

In their present posture, these eases afford an op­
portunity for this Court to clarify its recent decision 
in Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 
396 U.S. 19, with respect to the timing of school de­
segregation. We believe that question warrants 
plenary consideration here and, accordingly, join in 
urging that certiorari be granted.

The question is not without difficulty. On the one

872- 941— 69
( 1 )



2

hand, the cases now before the Court can be viewed in 
isolation and each assessed individually. I f  that ap­
proach is taken—as it was in Alexander and by the 
Fourth Circuit in Nesbit v. Statesville City Board of 
Education, No. 13,229, decided December 2, 1969—the 
appropriate result in several of the school districts 
presently before the Court might be to order complete 
conversion to a unitary system, including merger of 
student bodies, by February 1, 1970. The government 
suggested below that the court might appropriately 
order immediate implementation in those relatively 
small systems where an acceptable desegregation plan 
was already on file.1 At the same time, it is manifestly 
impractical to complete the process by that date in the 
larger districts where no plan has yet been devised, 
much less in those many areas where litigation has not 
even begun.2

The court below determined upon a broader ap­
proach. Looking beyond the eases immediately before 
it, the Fifth Circuit—acting en banc and unani­
mously—adopted a uniform rule for “these and all

1 The United States filed one consolidated brief in these cases, 
heard together by the court o f appeals en bane. In those 
cases where the record contained desegregation plans drawn by 
educators the United States suggested that the court might ap­
propriately order such plans to be implemented immediately. 
In other cases (such as the Bibb County, Georgia case), where 
such plans do not exist, we suggested that “ the district court be 
directed to order the board to seek expert assistance from. H EW  
in the formulation and prompt implementation o f a full de­
segregation plan”  (p. 63 o f U.S. brief).

2 Approximately 315 school systems in the Fifth Circuit did 
not have terminal plans for the 1970-71 school year when 
Singleton  was decided.



3

other school cases now being or which are to be con­
sidered”  (Pet. ¥ 0. 944, 2a), and, accordingly adopted 
September, 1970, as the final date by which all sys­
tems within the circuit must achieve full desegrega­
tion. Even more recently, three district judges, sitting 
together, decreed the same deadline uniformly for 81 
school systems in Georgia. United States v. Georgia, 
¥ 0. 19,972, 17. D. Ga., decided December 17, 1969. We 
suggest the same formula can be made applicable to 
all such school districts not now committed to an 
earlier terminal date.

The advantages of this approach are evident. The 
imposition of a uniform deadline minimizes the need 
for hearing and deciding the timing issue on a ease-by­
case, system-by-system, basis. It puts all school boards 
on notice that there will be no justification for further 
delay, and gives them sufficient time so that no excuse 
can be a legitimate one. It gives the Executive Branch 
of the Federal Government and private plaintiffs suf­
ficient time to require all school districts, through the 
judicial and the administrative processes, to comply 
with the deadline. It gives the educators sufficient time 
to develop the options available in restructuring school 
systems, and then actually to effectuate the necessary 
changes.

I f  this Court now endorses the schedule fashioned 
by the Fifth Circuit as uniformly applicable to all 
dual school systems, the United States will focus 
its resources toward making that, deadline a reality. 
Specifically, the government will institute suits against 
individual systems, groups of systems, or states and



4

state officials, as appropriate, to bring remaining 
school districts under orders of court, following the 
pattern of the recent Georgia case, supra, and will take 
all necessary steps to insure compliance with the re­
sulting decrees.

We recognize that any uniform timetable will be 
undiscriminating, and may appear to accord particu­
lar districts too much or too little delay, and we are 
sensitive of the charge that such a solution will sacri­
fice the rights of some school children for the re­
mainder of this school year. But, in our view, it rep­
resents a surer path to a prompt end of the problem 
than the vagaries of case-by-case litigation. There is, 
moreover, doubtful equity in an approach that im­
poses deadlines solely on the fortuity of the posture of 
a given case in the courts. If, as we now represent to 
the Court, the remaining uncommitted dual school 
systems can be required to complete the desegregation 
process by September, 1970, it will be tragically late, 
but a difficult and substantial accomplishment will 
have been won.

We join in urging that certiorari should be granted.
Respectfully submitted.

E rwin R. Griswold,
Solicitor General.

J erris Leonard,
Assistant Attorney General.

December 1969.

U .S . GOVERNMENT PR INTING O FFICE : ! 969



.

*  5 r  ■;
. .  .

, . =£K- ■

m m m ;
. m

i  •.. 'V ••- - ■ v  . . . .  ■ •. / .

vX‘:; v , - *\ H ;:v Vv- #  ■>
sk; ’■• ̂

® s « ■ ■ •- > y- /"-‘'A' "  ' • " '' '. '

.SSES.W ..... v . . , , »

* ; ■ ' ■ '  \

-;A- ■. 1tM
V i A- : rJ M m M

,
*  s i l t e a s ' i r - *

-  • •' -\ '  ' . ■ ! ... -> - V ;  .-ft#

.

• . , , /■ _ % *' : . ' ' '
* .r \ ' . . ., ' ■ '

. ' V  '
, \

H k  ■... • , i ,.v •- v . ■.: ,  ‘ - xtf ■ , I , L (
.

> - .......... ~ . ,v ■' . ' , ... ■ • . ..
.

-  ■ V r  '

\ V '

iZ& ^ A ' - . r- 
'' m m

kM

zfi . . . ‘Z ,, ' ' '/ ■■ H A ■ ; '. . ■ ,

■ - - -■ • :' , 1  ■: '■ , ■ V'; '■ f 'C" ^  ̂ r  ~. '  ̂ . ■■ ' ■ ■;* . - ; .■ " .  - .■/> :. : ' -
' > ,

S ~  j .  v t ■ • '■- 'v .  \ •• ^  -  A A '  w - V  ' ' f  J  ■ '  .. ... ■»■*: 4  *  -  .. t.„  . . . * . / -  A - A ^  '  > ’

. X„ ‘ ' ' '
•- .. f l . y r

Hi

>
. & :<*?•

. . .
.

.. . . . • ! '■ ‘ •'  ̂ V . / sf ■ 'w

w

A'T-V.,. ~ “'JB

"  ; ^  . . 1 ‘ ,  '  ;- /
■■ , -v ' • V v

US.

: '  ■ ' '
•-. /  ....’ . : : . ’ " • ' ; ‘ >1 Wi. f  ~