Case Name: Claude Bernard ROBINSON et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SHELBY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1972-09-21
Citations: 467 F.2d 1187
Docket Number: No. 71-1966
Parties: Claude Bernard ROBINSON et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SHELBY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 467
Pages: 1187–1207

Head Matter:
Claude Bernard ROBINSON et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SHELBY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 71-1966.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Sept. 21, 1972.
William E. Caldwell, Memphis, Tenn., Ratner, Sugarmon & Lucas, Memphis, Tenn., Jack Greenberg and Norman J. Chachkin, New York City, on brief, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Lee Winchester, Memphis, Tenn., and Thomas M. Keeling, Washington, D. C., Goff, Winchester & Walsh, Memphis, Tenn., David L. Norman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Brian K. Lindsberg, Joseph D. Rich and Paul F. Hancock, Thomas M. Keeling, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., on brief, for defendants-appellees.
James A. Crislip, Memphis, Tenn., for intervenor.
Before WEICK, McCREE and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court approving the revised desegregation plan submitted by the school board of Shelby County, Tennessee. The litigation has a long and complicated history reflected by the numerous opinions of the district court and of this Court. Two of the district court's opinions are reported at 311 F.Supp. 97 (W.D.Tenn.1970) and 330 F.Supp. 837 (W.D.Tenn.1971). The most recent consideration of the case by this Court consists of three opinions in Robinson v. Shelby County Board of Education, 442 F.2d 255 (6 Cir. 1971). Judge McCree's opinion recites the history of the litigation, states his views as to the applicable principles of law, and concludes by remanding the action for further proceedings in accordance with his opinion. Judge Miller concurred in the result reached by Judge McCree, but pointed out that upon the remand the district judge would have the benefit of the most recent rulings of the Su preme Court in this area, such rulings being the Supreme Court's decisions in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1970), Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 402 U.S. 33, 91 S.Ct. 1289, 28 L.Ed. 2d 577 (1970), and other cases decided on the same date. Judge Weiek's opinion concurred "only in the remand of the case without vacating the order of the District Court, for the reasons stated by Judge Miller, which remand will afford the District Court opportunity to consider the case in the light of the recent decisions of the Supreme Court."
Following the remand the district judge conducted a full and exhaustive hearing with respect to a number of proposed plans and objections. The hearing began on August 2 and extended to August 6, 1971. On August 11, 1971, he filed a memorandum opinion approving a revised plan proposed by the school board and rejecting other alternative plans.
It is apparent from the August 11, 1971, opinion of the district judge that he correctly stated and applied the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Swann, supra; that by approving the school board's plan he required substantial additional desegregation of the schools in the system; and that he made detailed findings of fact on all crucial aspects of the case.
We are of the opinion that the findings of fact of the district judge are not clearly erroneous and that he complied not only with the legal principles of Swann, but also with our remand of May 10, 1971. We find it unnecessary to discuss further the facts of the case and the issues presented as they have been so fully explored and set forth in the opinions of the district court and of this Court referred to above.
We find that the opinion and order of the district court accomplished meaningful and substantial desegregation of the Shelby County school system and that in approving the latest plan of the school board the district judge did not abuse his discretion or exceed his broad equitable powers to fashion an appropriate remedy. Cf. Swann, supra, at 16, 25-26, 31, 91 S.Ct. 1267.
For the reasons set forth by the district judge in his exhaustive opinion of August 11, 1971, his order entered pursuant thereto is hereby affirmed. We also affirm his order of August 4, 1972, relative to modifications of the school board plan. The district court will retain jurisdiction of the action and any party will have leave to apply to the court for any further changes that should become necessary.
. This Court recently permitted a partial remand to the district court to consider a petition of the school board to make certain modifications in its plan for the 1972-73 school year. After such partial remand, the district judge held an evidentiary hearing and by his order of August 4, 1972, approved two modifications which had been agreed to by the parties; viz. the retention of E. A. Har-rold School for the 1972-73 school year and the transportation of some students (predominantly white) to Scenic Hills. However, he took under advisement, pending further orders, the request of the school board to allow the Cordova School and George It. James School to remain open for that year.