Swann v. Charlotte - Mecklenburg Board of Education - wikipedia Swann v. Charlotte - Mecklenburg Board of Education Swann v. Charlotte - Mecklenburg Board of Education Supreme Court of the United States Argued October 12, 1970 Decided April 20, 1971 Full case name Swann et al. v. Charlotte - Mecklenburg Board of Education et al. Citations 402 U.S. 1 ( more ) Subsequent history 431 F. 2d 138, affirmed as to those parts in which it affirmed the District Court 's judgment. Holding Busing students to promote integration is constitutional. Court membership Chief Justice Warren E. Burger Associate Justices Hugo Black William O. Douglas John M. Harlan II William J. Brennan, Jr. Potter Stewart Byron White Thurgood Marshall Harry Blackmun Case opinions Majority Burger, joined by unanimous Wikisource has original text related to this article : Swann v. Charlotte - Mecklenburg Board of Education Swann v. Charlotte - Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 ( 1971 ) was a landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with the busing of students to promote integration in public schools. The Court held that busing was an appropriate remedy for the problem of racial imbalance in schools, even when the imbalance resulted from the selection of students based on geographic proximity to the school rather than from deliberate assignment based on race. This was done to ensure the schools would be `` properly '' integrated and that all students would receive equal educational opportunities regardless of their race. Judge John J. Parker of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, like many in the South, interpreted Brown as a charge not to segregate rather than an order to integrate. In 1963, the Court ruled in McNeese v. Board of Education and Goss v. Board of Education in favor of integration, and showed impatience with efforts to end segregation. In 1968 the Warren Court ruled in Green v. County School Board that freedom of choice plans were insufficient to eliminate segregation, thus it was necessary to take proactive steps to integrate schools. In United States v. Montgomery County Board of Education ( 1969 ), Judge Frank Johnson 's desegregation order for teachers was upheld, allowing an approximate ratio of the races to be established by a district judge. Contents 1 Background 2 Swann before the Supreme Court 3 Timeline of the case being overturned 4 See also 5 References 6 External links Background North Carolina was one of the more moderate Southern states, and its resistance to integration was much weaker than in most other areas of the South. After Brown, it had ended segregation with a school assignment plan based on neighborhoods that was approved by the Court. However, when Charlotte consolidated school districts from the city itself with a surrounding area totaling 550 square miles ( 1,400 km ), the majority of black students ( who lived in central Charlotte ) still attended mostly black schools as compared with majority white schools further outside the city. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund brought the Swann case on behalf of six - year - old James Swann and nine other families, with Julius L. Chambers presenting the case. Swann was chosen because his father was a theology professor, and was thus unlikely to be economically burdened by local retaliation. In 1965, Judge J. Braxton Craven decided Swann v. Charlotte - Mecklenburg Board of Education in favor of Charlotte - Mecklenburg, because there was no requirement in the Constitution to act purposely to increase racial mixing. After the Green ruling, the Swann case was filed again, and this time taken by Judge James B. McMillan as his first important case on the federal bench. McMillan had at one point been a public opponent of busing to integrate schools, but when the case was presented to him he said that the facts outweighed his feelings, and busing was the only way to fulfill the constitutional requirement of desegregation. Experts from Rhode Island College were brought in for the Plaintiff 's side to judge the effectiveness of the school board 's new plan. From April to November 1969, McMillan repeatedly ordered the board to revise the plan. The Board eventually submitted a plan rezoning neighborhoods into pie - shaped wedges, where blacks living in the center of Charlotte would be divided up and distributed to outlying, formerly white high schools. The school board 's plan required busing and would achieve a black population of 2 - 36 % in all ten of the high schools. Due to the greater number of elementary schools, elaborate gerrymandering was required and would achieve greater integration, but would leave more than half of black elementary students at majority - black schools. The Court rejected the Board 's plan in favor of outsider Dr. John Finger 's plan. The Finger Plan required busing of an additional 300 black students, established `` satellite zones '' and required pairing and grouping techniques to achieve even greater integration. As a consequence, McMillan became a local pariah. Chambers ' home, office and car were bombed when he first took up the case. When the case was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the case was heard en banc by six of the seven judges sat on the court. The seventh judge Judge J. Braxton Craven, recused himself due to him being the original trial court judge. The opinion was 3 - 2 - 1 that the restructured busing orders should be affirmed for older students, but that it be remanded for those of elementary school age. Two dissenters would have affirmed the whole decision, while one would reverse McMillan 's ruling in its entirety. McMillan decided to follow his original plan for elementary school students after the case was remanded to him. Swann before the Supreme Court Justice Douglas had previously been strongly opposed to busing. The Court was urged to begin their term early to hear the case, but decided to wait until the first day of their new term to begin. Despite his relative youth and inexperience, Julius Chambers argued the case, because of his intimate knowledge of the facts involved. Erwin Griswold, the Solicitor General of the United States, represented the federal government, advocating Nixon 's `` go - slow '' policy. Though no official vote was taken, Chief Justice Burger and Justice Black wanted to reverse McMillan 's order, while Justices Douglas, Harlan, Brennan and Marshall wanted a strong affirmation of the order ; Justices Stewart, White and Blackmun did not express a strong feeling either way. Douglas, Brennan and Marshall were quite liberal, but Harlan was usually conservative. When Burger circulated his very grudging affirmation of McMillan that limited future action and action in other areas by the Court, he met strong resistance. Douglas, Harlan, Brennan and Marshall all demanded revisions and circulated suggestions for alternate drafts. Justice Stewart also reacted strongly after carefully considering the facts of the case, and wrote a `` dissent '' that would have been the opinion of the court without revisions of Burger 's drafts. Burger revised the opinion five times, each time making a stronger affirmation of McMillan and incorporating the language of Harlan, Brennan, Stewart and others into it. After the fifth draft, Justice Black threatened a dissent if the opinion was made any stronger an affirmation, and so a sixth and final draft was created that was close to what Justice Stewart had composed after the first conference. The final opinion was 9 - 0 affirming McMillan 's order. The decision led to the widespread use of busing to end segregation by federal judges in the South. Timeline of the case being overturned When the courts mandated that busing should occur to desegregate the schools, they also noted that one day when the school system was thought to be unitary, busing would end and the school board would be able to come up with a new plan which would best suit the education of students in Charlotte - Mecklenburg. Integrated busing in Charlotte in 1973 After busing was enforced in 1971, throughout the 1970s and the 1980s, Charlotte was known across the nation as the `` city that made desegregation work. '' It paved the way for many different school systems to use the busing plan to force integration in the school systems. However, due to the booming economy of the city in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Charlotte experienced a rapid immigration from the Northeast and the Midwest, which resulted in a decline of the acceptanced of busing. In 1992, in response to these complaints, CMS created a managed choice plan to reduce the number of students being bused. This new choice plan revolved around magnet schools, making one - third of the schools in Charlotte - Mecklenburg either magnets or partial magnets, and each magnet had a quota of black and white students that were allowed to attend. But this did n't please many white families who were denied entrance into magnet schools that had fulfilled their quotas. In 1997, a parent, William Capacchione, sued the school system when his daughter was denied entrance into a magnet school for the second time based on her race. While the school system opposed the end of busing, Judge Robert D. Potter declared the mandate of a unitary system had been met and lifted the court order on mandatory busing by race or ethnicity. This ruling was upheld by the appeals court in Richmond, Virginia in 2000 and after the final appeal was declined to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, federal order of busing was ended in Charlotte - Mecklenburg and it was left in the hands of the city school board to decide how to redo the assignment policy for school attendance. The new assignment policy which was adopted in the fall of 2002 was known as the `` School Choice Plan. '' This new choice plan divided the city into four large attendance zones based on neighborhoods. Students were allowed to choose to stay at their neighborhood `` home school, '' or they could rank their top three choices of any other school in CMS ; however they would only receive free transportation to their home school or any of the magnet schools in the district. If families chose their home school as their first choice, they were guaranteed that school ; otherwise they were entered into a lottery that gave available spaces in overenrolled schools. If people did not choose a school, they were immediately placed into their home school. After creating a variety of programs to inform families about the new plan, over 95 % of the families in the Charlotte - Mecklenburg school system submitted choices for the new school year. See also List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 402 References Jump up ^ `` Swann v. Charlotte - Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ. 402 U.S. 1 ( 1971 ), Justia U.S. Supreme Court ''. Retrieved 17 October 2015. line feed character in title = at position 45 ( help ) Jump up ^ `` The Charlotte Mecklenburg Story '' http://cmstory.org/content/signs-times#McMillan Jump up ^ `` The Charlotte Mecklenburg Story '' https://web.archive.org/web/20050217014254/http://www.cmstory.org/aaa2/events/70/111e.html ^ Jump up to : Godwin, R.K., Leland, S.M., Baxter, A.D., and Southworth, S. ( 2006 ). Sinking Swann : Public School Choice and the Resegregation of Charlotte 's Public Schools. Review of Policy Research, 23 ( 5 ), 983 - 997. Jump up ^ Marcus, D.L. ( 1999 ). After the Buses Stop. US News & World Report, 127 ( 23 ), 38 - 39 Jump up ^ Walsh, M. ( 2002 ). High Court Closes Historic Desegregation Case. Education Week, 21 ( 32 ), 31 - 33. External links Swann v. Charlotte - Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 ( 1971 ) ( full text with links to cited material ) Oral History Interview with Arthur Griffin from Oral Histories of the American South United States Fourteenth Amendment case law Citizenship Clause Slaughter - House Cases ( 1873 ) Elk v. Wilkins ( 1884 ) United States v. Wong Kim Ark ( 1898 ) Perez v. Brownell ( 1958 ) Saenz v. Roe ( 1964 ) Afroyim v. Rusk ( 1967 ) Rogers v. Bellei ( 1971 ) Due Process Clause Economic substantive due process Mugler v. Kansas ( 1887 ) Allgeyer v. Louisiana ( 1897 ) Lochner v. New York ( 1905 ) Coppage v. Kansas ( 1915 ) Adams v. Tanner ( 1917 ) Adkins v. Children 's Hospital ( 1923 ) Right to privacy Meyer v. Nebraska ( 1923 ) Pierce v. Society of Sisters ( 1925 ) Griswold v. Connecticut ( 1965 ) Doe v. Bolton ( 1973 ) Roe v. Wade ( 1973 ) Bowers v. Hardwick ( 1986 ) Webster v. Reproductive Health Services ( 1989 ) Planned Parenthood v. Casey ( 1992 ) Lawrence v. Texas ( 2003 ) Whole Woman 's Health v. Hellerstedt ( 2016 ) Right to abortion United States v. Vuitch ( 1971 ) Doe v. Bolton ( 1973 ) Roe v. Wade ( 1973 ) H.L. v. Matheson ( 1981 ) City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health ( 1983 ) Webster v. Reproductive Health Services ( 1989 ) Hodgson v. Minnesota ( 1990 ) Planned Parenthood v. Casey ( 1992 ) Stenberg v. Carhart ( 2000 ) Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of New England ( 2006 ) Gonzales v. Carhart ( 2007 ) Whole Woman 's Health v. Hellerstedt ( 2016 ) Civil rights liability under Section 1983 Monroe v. Pape ( 1961 ) McNeese v. Board of Educ. ( 1963 ) Pierson v. Ray ( 1967 ) Jenkins v. McKeithen ( 1969 ) Scheuer v. Rhodes ( 1974 ) Wood v. Strickland ( 1975 ) O'Connor v. Donaldson ( 1975 ) Paul v. Davis ( 1976 ) Imbler v. Pachtman ( 1976 ) Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York ( 1978 ) Procunier v. Navarette ( 1978 ) Owen v. City of Independence ( 1980 ) Harlow v. Fitzgerald ( 1982 ) Felder v. Casey ( 1988 ) Will v. Michigan Department of State Police ( 1989 ) Gonzaga University v. Doe ( 2002 ) Inyo County v. Paiute - Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community ( 2003 ) City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams ( 2005 ) Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee ( 2009 ) Ashcroft v. Iqbal ( 2009 ) Los Angeles County v. Humphries ( 2010 ) Connick v. Thompson ( 2011 ) Other Holden v. Hardy ( 1898 ) Muller v. Oregon ( 1908 ) Buck v. Bell ( 1927 ) Powell v. Alabama ( 1932 ) West Coast Hotel v. Parrish ( 1937 ) NAACP v. Alabama ( 1958 ) Griswold v. Connecticut ( 1965 ) Loving v. Virginia ( 1967 ) Epperson v. Arkansas ( 1968 ) In re Winship ( 1971 ) Edwards v. Aguillard ( 1987 ) Troxel v. Granville ( 2000 ) Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. ( 2009 ) Obergefell v. Hodges ( 2015 ) Equal Protection Clause United States v. Cruikshank ( 1876 ) Pace v. Alabama ( 1883 ) Civil Rights Cases ( 1883 ) Yick Wo v. Hopkins ( 1886 ) Plessy v. Ferguson ( 1896 ) Buchanan v. Warley ( 1917 ) Lum v. Rice ( 1927 ) Skinner v. Oklahoma ( 1942 ) Perez v. Sharp ( 1948 ) Goesaert v. Cleary ( 1948 ) Shelley v. Kraemer ( 1948 ) Sipuel v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla. ( 1948 ) Sweatt v. Painter ( 1950 ) McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents ( 1950 ) Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka ( 1954 ) Hernandez v. Texas ( 1954 ) Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County ( 1964 ) Katzenbach v. Morgan ( 1966 ) Loving v. Virginia ( 1967 ) Swann v. Charlotte - Mecklenburg Board of Education ( 1971 ) Guey Heung Lee v. Johnson ( 1971 ) Reed v. Reed ( 1971 ) Frontiero v. Richardson ( 1973 ) Craig v. Boren ( 1976 ) Milliken v. Bradley ( 1974 ) Plyler v. Doe ( 1982 ) Romer v. Evans ( 1996 ) Grutter v. Bollinger ( 2003 ) Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 ( 2007 ) Obergefell v. Hodges ( 2015 ) Retrieved from `` https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swann_v._Charlotte-Mecklenburg_Board_of_Education&oldid=793338828 '' Categories : United States Supreme Court cases United States school desegregation case law Education in Charlotte, North Carolina United States equal protection case law History of civil rights in the United States Hidden categories : CS1 errors : invisible characters Talk Contents About Wikipedia Add links This page was last edited on 1 August 2017, at 04 : 03. About Wikipedia

Question: (mc)what issue was debated in the swann v. charlotte-mecklenburg board of education case
Answer: the busing of students to promote integration in public schools