BRIGGS ET AL
v.
ELLIOTT ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Black students in South Carolina challenged state laws requiring racially segregated schools and sought an injunction against unequal educational facilities in Clarendon County School District No. 22. The Supreme Court vacated the lower court's judgment, which had ordered equalization of facilities rather than abolishing segregation, and remanded the case to the district court to consider additional factual developments and determine appropriate relief, with Justices Black and Douglas dissenting from the vacation order.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
Appellant Negro school children brought this action in the Federal District Court to enjoin appellee school officials from making any distinctions based upon race or color in providing educational facilities for School District No. 22, Clarendon County, South Carolina. As the b'asis for their complaint, appellants alleged that equal •facilities are not provided for Negro pupils aAd that those constitutional and statutory provisions of South Carolina requiring separate schools “for children of the white and' colored races”* are-invalid under the. Fourteenth Amendment . At the trial before a court of; three judges, appellees conceded that the school facilities provided for Negro students “are not substantially equal to those afforded in the District for white pupils.”
The District Court held, one judge dissenting, that the challenged constitutional and statutory provisions were' not of themselves violative of the Fourteenth, Amendment. The court below also found that the educational facilities afforded by appellees for Negro pupils are not equal to those provided for white children. The District Court did not issue an injunction abolishing racial dis- . tinetions as prayed by appellants, but did order appellees to proceed at once to furnish educational facilities for Negroes .eqüal.tó-those furnished white pupils. In its decree, entered June 21, 1951, the District Court ordered that appellees report to that court within six months as to action taken by them to carry out the court’s order. 98 F. Supp. 529.
Dissatisfied with the relief granted by the District Court, appellants brought a timely appeal directly to this Court under 28 U. S. C. (Supp. IV) § 1253. After the appeal was docketed but before its consideration by this .Court, appellees filed in the court below their report as ordered.
The District Court has not given its views on this report, having entered an order stating that it will withhold further action thereon while the cause is pending in this Court on appeal. Prior to our consideration of the questions raised on this appeal, we should have the benefit of the views of the District Court upon the additional facts brought to the attention of that court in the report which it ordered. The District Court should also be afforded the opportunity to take whatever action it may deem appropriate in light of that report. In order that this may be done, we-vacate the judgment of the District Court and remand the case to that court for further pro-. ceedings. Another judgment, entered at the conclusion of those proceedings, may provide the basis for any further appeals to this Court.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas dissent to vacation of the judgment of the District Court on the grounds stated. They believe that the additional facts contained in the report to the District Court are wholly irrelevant to the constitutional questions presented by the appeal to this Court, and that we should-note jurisdiction and set the case down for argument.
*
S. C. Const., Art. XI, § 7; S. C. Code, 1942, § 5377.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. Bd. of Educ. of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (U.S. 1954)…qualization program. 98 F. Supp. 529. This Court vacated the District Court’s judgment and remanded the case for the purpose of obtaining the court’s views on a report filed by the defendants concerning the progress made in the equalization program. 342 U. S. 350. On remand, the District Court found that substantial equality had been achieved except for buildings and that the defendants were proceeding to rectify this inequality as well. 103 F. Supp. 920. The case is again here on direct appeal under 28 U. S…
-
Brown v. Bd. of Educ. of Topeka, 349 U.S. 294 (U.S. 1955)…es coming to us from Kansas, South Carolina, and Virginia were originally heard by three-judge District Courts convened under 28 U. S. C. §§ 2281 and- 2284. These eases will accordingly be remanded to those three-judge courts. See Briggs v. Elliott, 342 U. S. 350. See Alexander v. Hillman, 296 U. S. 222, 239. See Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U. S. 321, 329-330.…
-
Green v. Bd. OF Elections OF the City OF NEW York, 380 F.2d 445 (2d Cir. 1967)…cts the legislature to “enact laws excluding from the right of suffrage all persons convicted of bribery or of any infamous crime.” . Three-judge courts were also convoked on that issue in Briggs v. Elliott, 98 F. Supp. 529 (E.D.S.C.1951), vacated, 342 U.S. 350, 72 S.Ct. 327, 96 L.Ed. 392 (1952), decision on remand, 103 F.Supp. 920 (1952), and Davis v. County School Board, 103 F.Supp. 337 (E.D.Va.1952), both of which were consolidated with the Brown case. . The Seventeenth Amendment adopted this language…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence