Document: 349 U.S. 294 75 S.Ct. 753 99 L.Ed. 1083 Oliver BROWN, et al., Appellants,v.BOARD OF EDUCATION TOPEKA, Shawnee County, KANSAS, al. Harry BRIGGS, Jr., Appellants, v. R. W. ELLIOTT, Dorothy E. DAVIS, COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY, VIRGINIA, Spottswood Thomas BOLLING, Petitioners, C. Melvin SHARPE, Francis B. GEBHART, Ethel Louise BELTON, Nos. 1 to 5. Argued April 11, 12, 13 and 14, 1955. Decided May 31, [Syllabus from pages 294-295 intentionally omitted] Mr. Robert L. Carter, New York City, for appellants in No. 1. Harold Fatzer, Topeka, Kan., appellees Messrs. Thurgood Marshall, Robinson, III, Richmond, Va., 2 3. S. Rogers, Summerton, S.C., McC. Figg, Charleston, 2. Archibald G. Robertson, J. Lindsay Almond, Atty. Gen., George Hayes James M. Nabrit, Washington, D.C., petitioners 4. Milton D. Korman, respondents Joseph Donald Craven, Wilmington, Del., Louis Redding, Richard Ervin Ralph Odum, Tallahassee, Fla., State of Florida, I. Beverly Lake, Raleigh, N.C., North Carolina, Gentry, Little Rock, Ark., Arkansas, Mac Q. Williamson, Oklahoma, Okl., Ferdinand Sybert, Ellicott Md., Maryland, John Ben Shepperd Burnell Waldrep, Austin, Tex., Texas, Sol. Gen. Simon Sobeloff, the United States, amici curiae. [Amicus Curiae Information page 297 Chief Justice WARREN delivered opinion Court. These cases were decided on 17, 1954. The opinions that date,1 declaring fundamental principle racial discrimination public education is unconstitutional, are incorporated herein by reference. All provisions federal, state, or local law requiring permitting such must yield this principle. There remains consideration manner which relief be accorded. Because these arose under different conditions their disposition will involve a variety problems, we requested further argument question relief.2 In view nationwide importance decision, invited Attorney General States Attorneys all states present views question. parties, Texas filed briefs participated oral argument. 3 presentations informative helpful Court its complexities arising transition system freed discrimination. also demonstrated substantial steps eliminate schools have already been taken, not only some communities arose, but appearing as curiae, other well. Substantial progress has made District Columbia Kansas Delaware involved litigation. defendants coming us South Carolina Virginia awaiting decision concerning relief. 4 Full implementation constitutional principles may require solution varied school problems. School authorities primary responsibility elucidating, assessing, solving problems; courts consider whether action constitutes good faith governing principles. proximity possible need hearings, originally heard can best perform judicial appraisal. Accordingly, believe it appropriate remand those courts.3 5 fashioning effectuating decrees, guided equitable Traditionally, equity characterized practical flexibility shaping remedies4 facility adjusting reconciling private needs.5 call exercise traditional attributes power. At stake personal interest plaintiffs admission soon practicable nondiscriminatory basis. To effectuate elimination obstacles making systems operated accordance with set forth our 1954, decision. Courts properly take into account systematic effective manner. But should go without saying vitality cannot allowed simply because disagreement them. 6 While giving weight considerations, make prompt reasonable start toward full compliance ruling. Once made, find additional time necessary carry out ruling an burden rests upon establish consistent at earliest date. end, problems related administration, physical condition plant, transportation system, personnel, revision districts attendance areas compact units achieve determining nonracial basis, laws regulations foregoing They adequacy any plans propose meet racially system. During period transition, retain jurisdiction cases. 7 judgments below, except case, accordingly reversed remanded proceedings enter orders decrees proper admit basis deliberate speed parties judgment case—ordering immediate previously attended white children—is affirmed stated opinion, case Supreme deem light opinion. 8 It so ordered. 9 Judgments, 5, directions; directions. 347 483, 74 686, 98 873, 497, 693, 884. Further was following questions, 495—496, note 13, 692, propounded Court: '4. Assuming segregation violates Fourteenth Amendment '(a) would decree necessarily follow providing that, within limits normal geographic districting, Negro children forthwith admitted choice, '(b) Court, powers, permit gradual adjustment brought about existing segregated based color distinctions? '5. On assumption questions 4(a) (b) based, assuming powers end described 4(b), formulate detailed cases; if so, what specific issues reach; '(c) appoint special master hear evidence recommending terms decrees; '(d) first instance directions frame cases, general include procedures arriving more decrees?' Kansas, three-judge convened 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281 2284, U.S.C.A. 2281, 2284. courts. See Briggs Elliott, 342 350, 72 327, 96 392. Alexander Hillman, 296 222, 239, 56 204, 209, 80 192. Hecht Co. Bowles, 321 321, 329—330, 64 587, 591, 592, 88 754.

Category: 1