Document: 412 U.S. 427 93 S.Ct. 2201 37 L.Ed.2d 48 Deborah A. NORTHCROSS et al.v.BOARD OF EDUCATION the MEMPHIS CITY SCHOOLS al. No. 72—1164. June 4, 1973. PER CURIAM. 1 This case presents question of propriety, under § 718 Emergency School Aid Act 1972, 86 Stat. 369, 20 U.S.C. 1617, a denial attorneys' fees to successful plaintiffs in this litigation aimed at desegregating public schools Memphis, Tennessee. Section 718, which became effective on July 1, provides that '(u)pon entry final order by court United States against local educational agency, State (or any agency thereof), or thereof),' action seeking redress illegal unconstitutional discrimination with respect 'elementary and secondary education, court, its discretion, upon finding proceedings were necessary bring about compliance, may allow prevailing party, other than States, reasonable attorney's fee as part costs.' In case, Court Appeals for Sixth Circuit denied petitioners' motion an award fees. The did not, however, state reasons it is therefore not possible determine whether applied proper standard reaching result.1 2 tracks wording 204(b) Civil Rights 1964, 78 244, 42 2000a—3(b), that, enforce Title II Act, 'the costs . ..' Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 400, 88 964, 19 1263 (1968), we held 204(b), 'one who succeeds obtaining injunction should ordinarily recover unless special circumstances would render such unjust.' Id., 402, S.Ct., 966. similarity language is, course, strong indication two statutes be interpreted pari passu. Moreover, provisions share common raison d'e tre. school cases are 'private attorneys general' vindicating national policy same sense actions. enactment both was purpose—'to encourage individuals injured racial seek judicial relief .." Johnson Combs, 471 F.2d 84, (CA5 1972), quoting supra, U.S., We conclude if requirements satisfied, plaintiff 'should Since impossible us and, so, so correctly, grant petition certiorari, vacate judgment below insofar relates fees, remand further consistent opinion.2 See Taylor McKeithen, 407 191, 92 1980, 32 648 (1972); cf. California Krivda, 409 33, 32, 34 45 (1972). 3 Judgment vacated remanded. 4 Mr. Justice MARSHALL participate consideration disposition case. Respondents suggest might have been due untimeliness. Although clear petitions rehearing en banc untimely, there no bill filed out time, reason. need do decide authorizes those expenses incurred prior date section came into effect. also whether, what circumstances, permissible suits brought 1983 absence specific statutory authorization award. Knight Auciello, 453 852 (CA1 1972); Lee Southern Home Sites Corp., 444 143 1971).

Category: 5