Court Opinion

ID: 9450700
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:55:39.340884+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:25.552378
License: Public Domain

SOBELOFF and J. SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judges
(concurring in part and dissenting in part):
For ten years after the decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 not only did the Board of Education of Buncombe County continue to operate its schools on a segregated basis, but it administered the county high schools in a manner which failed even to comply with the old “separate but equal” doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 16 S.Ct. 1138, 41 L.Ed. 256 (1896). Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that although the District Court retained jurisdiction of the case “to consider the implementation and good faith administration of the plan” it erred in failing to enjoin the Board of Education from engaging in racial discrimination. The court’s finding that “this is not a recalcitrant Board of Education but one which is attempting to comply with the law” was not a sufficient ground for denying injunctive relief. Until the Board of Education has shown its good faith by deeds as well as words, an injunction is required. Brooks v. Arlington County, *333324 F.2d 303 (4th Cir. 1963); and see our separate opinion in Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond, decided today.
The District Court ruling that plaintiffs had no standing to raise the issue of segregated faculties and administrative personnel was clearly erroneous. Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond, 4 Cir., 345 F.2d 310, decided today; Griffin v. Board of Supervisors of Prince Edward County, 339 F.2d 486 (4th Cir. 1964); Jackson v. School Board of the City of Lynchburg, 321 F.2d 230 (4th Cir. 1963); Board of Public Instruction of Duval County v. Braxton, 326 F.2d 616, 620 (5th Cir. 1964). We agree that the case should be remanded to the District Court, and on remand an evidentiary hearing should be held on this issue. The District Court may then decide whether the relief prayed for is appropriate.
Except as above indicated, and subject generally to the views set forth in our separate opinion in the Richmond case, we concur.