Document: 433 U.S. 672 97 S.Ct. 2907 53 L.Ed.2d 1044 Thomas BRENNANv.Kevin ARMSTRONG et al. No. 76-809. June 29, 1977. PER CURIAM. 1 This school desegregation case involves the system in city of Milwaukee, Wis. The District Court here made various findings segregative acts on part petitioner School Board members, appointed a Special Master 'to develop plan for Milwaukee public system,' and certified its order interlocutory appeal to Appeals Seventh Circuit. Amos v. Directors, 408 F. Supp. 765. Appeals, observing that there was 'an unexplained hiatus between specific fact conclusory intent,' stated is 'entitled presumption consistency' concluded were not clearly erroneous. 539 F.2d 625. Neither ordering development remedial plan, nor affirming, addressed itself inquiry mandated by our opinion Dayton Education Brinkman, 406, 2766, 851, which we said: 2 'If such violations are found, first instance, subject review must determine how much incremental effect these had racial distribution population as presently constituted, when compared what it would have been absence constitutional violations. remedy be designed redress difference, only if has systemwide impact may remedy.' U.S., at 420, S.Ct., 2766. 3 petition certiorari accordingly granted, judgment vacated, remanded reconsideration light Village Arlington Heights Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 252, 555, 50 450 (1977), Dayton. 4 Mr. Justice STEVENS, with whom BRENNAN MARSHALL join, dissenting. 5 My concern over Court's misuse summary dispositions prompts this dissent. 6 explanation action gives erroneous impression Appeals' decision related question kind approprite case. Quite contrary, no issue before court considered issue. 7 60-page 'school authorities engaged practices intent purpose creating maintaining segregated system, causing current conditions segregation schools.' F.Supp. 765, 818 (E.D.Wis.1976). Recognizing 'remedial efforts well naught determination liability ultimately reversed appeal,' id., 824. Judge Reynolds law appeal. To further ensure appealability, he entered general enjoining future discrimination directing defendants formulate plans. App. 140-141. did call any particular plan. Thus, reached existence violation.1 After careful evidence, finding intentional 625 (CA7 1976). 8 now vacates remands two cases. One those cases2 merely routine application Washington Davis, 426 229, 96 2040, 48 597, correctly construed Appeals.3 other relevant liability, all, because supports Appeals.4 9 Of course, formulating remedy, will need consider cases Milliken Bradley, 267, 2749, 745, dispute about proper scope remedy. But since ever decided nothing reconsider These certainly provide justification vacating affirming conclusion petitioners violated Constitution. hasty unfortunately lead unnecessary work already overburdened Circuit Judges, who given far more study than time give it. Nevertheless, quite clear after respectful remains free re-enter original judgment. 10 In my should denied. However, granted petition, practice determined supported record, I affirm argued 2, 1976 (see 625), broader 142, 144: Cor., 450. cited Davis holding 'a 'racially discriminatory purpose' essential an equal protection violation cases, cases,' '(p)urpose . inferred from 'the totality facts,' include impact,' 633-634, quoting 242, 2049. primarily therefore irrelevant It does, however, stress limitations appellate area, 'clearly erroneous' rule, 417, 2776, scrupulously followed, e. g., F.2d, 637.

Category: 1