Document: 457 U.S. 52 102 S.Ct. 2223 72 L.Ed.2d 668 Kathy Sue JOHNSON, etc., et al.v.BOARD OF EDUCATION the CITY CHICAGO al. No. 81-1097. June 7, 1982. PER CURIAM. 1 This case was commenced by petitioners challenging voluntary adoption Board of Education city Chicago racial quotas on enrollment at two high schools. Petitioners alleged that quotas, purportedly designed to arrest "white flight," were unlawful because they resulted in denial admission those schools some black applicants but no white applicants. The District Court upheld plan, and Appeals affirmed. 604 F.2d 504 (CA7 1979). We granted certiorari, 448 910, 100 3055, 65 1139 (1980), then vacated judgment remanded "for further consideration light subsequent development described suggestion mootness filed respondents." 449 915, 101 339, 66 162 (1980). That entry a consent decree related case, United States v. Chicago, 88 F.Supp. 679 (ND Ill.), which agreed develop systemwide integration Board's announcement it had abandoned use Appeals, 645 75, consider mootness. 75 (1981). court, finding readopted concluded without taking evidence challenge not moot. 664 1069, agreeing moot relying upon doctrine law affirmed reconsidering constitutional argued eliminated or reduced any discriminatory effects quotas. 1069 have now renewed their request for review. 2 agree with is does undermine court's original decision upholding However, since if we grant certiorari would as an matter, might well be relevant consideration. It reason Appeals' development. No additional taken therefore neither record nor opinions reflect vacate judgment, remand direction matter consolidated ongoing proceeding 80-C-5124, so court may decide petitioners' basis complete factual record. Because judgments this constrain either or, should appeal subsequently taken, Appeals. 3 ordered. 4 Justice BRENNAN petition writ set oral argument. 5 WHITE took part case. 6 REHNQUIST, whom MARSHALL joins, dissenting. 7 Title 28 U.S.C. § 2106 provides "[t]he Supreme . affirm, modify, vacate, aside reverse decree, order lawfully brought before ." Our practice over many years indicates implicit authority requirement specify our reasons acting do. Here departs from requirement. ultimate disposition vacation another Northern Illinois. A reading Court's per curiam suggests vaguely dissatisfied opinion reviews, substantive made whether correct incorrect whole part. Nothing us me why assume function more properly exercised Court, consolidation pending action Court. But even I disposed propriety hope something nature explaining accompany disposition. Since makes effort such explanation, dissent.

Category: 8