Order to Appear as Amicus and Set Trial

    MEMORANDUM 

TO: Jack Greenberg July 2, 1979 

James M. Nabrit, III 

FROM: Bill Lann Lee 

RE: Active School Desegregation Cases 

The following are some of the above cases: 

A. Elementary and Secondary 

1. Estes v. Tasby, Dallas, Texas -- scope of remedy 

issues in Supreme Court, cert. granted (MN) 

2. U. S. and Overton v. Austin ISD, Austin, Texas -- 

long overdue remedy in triethnic community (BLL) 

3. Northcross v. Bd. of Ed. of Memphis, Memphis, Tenn. 

—- modification of desegregation plan (Bill 

Caldwell and Richard Fields of Ratner, Sugarmon, 

etc.) 

4. McPherson v. School Dist. No. 186, I11., Springfield, 

Tllinois -- school closings and teacher dismis- 

sal issues in the wake of recent comprehensive 

settlement (Percy Julian) 
. 

5. Mims v. Duval County School Bd., Jacksonville, 

Florida -- motion for further relief on establish- 

ment of magnet schools, school construction and 

general ineffectiveness of desegregation plan 

(Clyde Murphy) 

6. Martin v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed., 

Charlotte, N. C. -- action by white plaintiffs 

seeking to weaken desegregation plan approved 

by court in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg 

7. Kelley v. Nashville Bd. of Ed., Nashville, Tennessee 

=- issue is general ineffective relief (Avon 

Williams) 



Re: Active School Desegregation Cases rhe 

8. Gaines v. Dougherty County Bd. of BEd., Albany, 

Georgia -- inadequate desegregation plan per- 

mitting delay of high school desegregation and 

excluding elementary schools subject of recent 

proceedings in district court, 5th Circuit 

appeal filed (CSR, C. B. King) 

9. For Louisiana cases, see Napoleon Williams. 

B. Post-Secondary Schools 

1. Geier v. Blanton, Tennessee higher education 

case -- Nashville merger will be subject of 

cert. petition (stay denied in June); inade- 

quate statewide desegregation efforts need 

to be relitigated (BLL) 

2. Adams_v. Califano, forever in litigation, e.g., 

challenge to Byrd-Esch amendments, N. C. 

higher ed. matters, etc. (JMN) 

Conclusion 

Several cases may be directly affected by the Dayton 

and Columbus decisions because the issues overlap, e.g., 

Austin case, cert. denied. In addition, because these cases 

all concern scope of remedy generally, the apparent thrust of 

the Dayton and Columbus cases to affirm the affirmative duty 

to desegregate will probably have at least an “overwash" 

effect in all the above cases, and possibly result in a reassess- 

ment of other cases where relief has not been adequate. 

B.L.L. 

ec: Ann Dowling