Document: 397 U.S. 232 90 S.Ct. 891 25 L.Ed.2d 246 NORTHCROSS et al.v.BOARD OF EDUCATION the MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE, CITY SCHOOLS al. No. 1136. March 9, 1970. Jack Greenberg and James M. Nabrit III, for petitioners. Petree, respondents. PER CURIAM. 1 In 1966 District Court Western of Tennessee approved a plan respondent Board Education desegregation Memphis school system. July 1968 petitioners made motion that court order to adopt new prepared with assistance Title IV Center University Tennessee. The is funded by Department Health, Education, Welfare. permitted unrestricted free transfers, desired without such provision, one would also provide among other things complete faculty desegregation. denied as filed but on May 15, 1969, in an unreported opinion, directed file revised which incorporate existing (as proposed during hearing supplement it), contain modified transfer provision appointment Director Desegregation charged responsibility devise ways means 'of assisting its affirmative duty convert unitary system racial discrimination will be eliminated root branch,' that, prior January 1, 1970, map zone boundary lines enrollment figures race within zones enable then 'reconsider adequacy plan.' expressly found further steps were necessary because, although 'has acted good faith,' 'the (supplemental) plans do not have real prospects dismantling state-imposed dual at 'earliest practicable date." Petitioners appealed Appeals Sixth Circuit. June 1969 they Motion Summary Reversal November 3, after this Court's decision Alexander v. Holmes County 396 19, 29, 24 19 (1969), require adoption now. Both motions December case was remanded Court; stated action part premature 'until United States has had submitted it ordered plan, opportunity consider act upon it.' 2 thereupon injunction pending certiorari which, reliance Board, sought requiring 'to prepare or before 5, addition adjusted presently required file, operation City public schools current 1969—70 year.' 12, ground inapplicable because '(the is) satisfied now operating 'dual system' has, subject complying present commands Judge, converted pre-Brown into 'within no person effectively excluded color." 3 Petitioners, 30, petition 'requiring preparation, H.E.W. Center, pupil integration affecting all phases operations system, implementation year conformity * Bd. *.' 4 branted. We hold erred following respects: 5 1. Since findings Court—that been dismantled under Board's supplemental did 'not (it) date"—are supported substantial evidence, substituting own finding 'is 6 2. appears neither nor updated properly review, rule 'has, 7 3. holding case. 8 Appeals' remand affirmed, direction proceed promptly issues decide consistently Board. denying injunctive relief affirmed. denied. 9 judgment herein shall issue forthwith. 10 It so ordered. 11 Mr. Justice MARSHALL took consideration 12 Chief BURGER, concurring result. 13 Save factor, I grant set expedited argument special sitting, if necessary. factor barrier taking step particular able participate, thus limiting seven justices. basis time come clear up what seems confusion, genuine simulated, concering mandates. By 944, Carter West Feliciana Parish School 290, 608, 477 (1970), Stewart indicated we preferred reach first oral argument. 14 These cases widely varying factors: some records reveal desegregating schools, others only partial plans; reflect rezoning districts, not; use traditional bus transportation began consolidated where imperative, different purpose unrelated availability required. 15 suggestion defined supportable. stated, albeit perhaps too cryptically, from any color.' From us might raised developed As soon possible, however, ought resolve basic practical problems when are appropriately presented including whether, constitutional matter, balance must achieved schools; extent districts may altered matter; provided achieve ends holdings Court. Other related emerge. 16 However, reasons namely already disabled vacancy long standing case, join result reached

Category: 1