Document: 382 U.S. 198 86 S.Ct. 358 15 L.Ed.2d 265 Patricia ROGERS et al.v.Edgar F. PAUL al. No. 532. Dec. 6, 1965. Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III, Derrick A. Bell, Jr., and George Howard, for petitioners. John P. Woods, respondents. PER CURIAM. 1 The petition writ of certiorari to the Court Appeals Eighth Circuit motion add parties are granted. judgment that court is vacated case remanded District Western Arkansas further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 2 1. This class action desegregate public high schools Fort Smith, Arkansas, was commenced several years ago in name two Negro students. One students has since graduated other entered last school grade. A made on behalf additional It alleged therein, not denied by respondents, these 10th 11th grades they members represented, seeking same relief all reasons offered original party plaintiffs. That accordingly 3 2. desegregation plan adopted 1957 desegregates only one grade a year 10th, 12th still segregated. who petitioners here were assigned basis their race.1 Those assignments constitutionally forbidden stated Brown v. Board Education, 347 483, 74 686, 98 L.Ed. 873, but also because thereby prevented from taking certain courses at another limited white students, see State Missouri ex rel. Gaines Canada, 305 337, 59 232, 83 208; Sipuel Regents, 332 631, 68 299, 92 247; Sweatt Painter, 339 629, 70 848, 94 1114. Petitioners entitled immediate relief; we have emphasized '(d)elays desegregating systems no longer tolerable.' Bradley School Board, 103, 105, 224, 226. Pending Smith according general principle, those similarly situated shall be allowed transfer more extensive curriculum which excluded race. 4 3. From outset challenged an policy respondents allocating faculty racial basis. took view without standing challenge policy, refused permit any inquiry into matter. sustained ruling, holding presently desegregated would make challenge. 345 F.2d 117, 125. We do agree remand prompt evidentiary hearing issue. 5 Even Appeals' requirement met petitioners' extent. Moreover, reject as being unduly restrictive. Two theories give yet sufficient interest allocation faculty: (1) denies them equality educational opportunity regard segregation pupils; (2) it renders inadequate otherwise constitutional pupil soon applied grades. See supra. plainly had under first theory thus improperly 6 Vacated remanded. 7 Mr. Justice CLARK, HARLAN, WHITE mr. FORTAS set down argument plenary consideration. adequacy method chosen assigning purpose lower before us, contemplated part record.

Category: 1