CALHOUN ET AL.
v.
LATIMER 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.
The court held that the District Court must appraise the Board's new resolution in an evidentiary hearing to determine if it meets constitutional standards for desegregation.
After the decree below, the Atlanta Board of Education adopted new provisions for free transfers and initial assignments. Parties filed supplemental m…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Student Assignment cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
During the argument of this case, counsel for respondents stated that after the decree below was entered the Atlanta Board of Education adopted additional provisions authorizing free transfers with certain limitations in the city’s high schools. At our invitation both parties filed supplemental memoranda dealing with this aspect of the case. It appears therefrom that since the argument the Atlanta Board of Education on April 8, 1964, adopted and promulgated a new formal resolution stating the present policy of the Board and the factors it will consider in making initial assignments of pupils and in permitting transfers for the school year 1964-1965. Petitioners deny that this resolution meets the constitutional standards and assert that with respect to students in the elementary schools the plan will not achieve desegregation until sometime in the 1970’s.
In light of the developments at and since the argument, we deem it appropriate that the nature and effect of the Board’s resolution of April 8, 1964, be appraised by the District Court in a proper evidentiary hearing. To this end we vacate the judgment and remand the cause to the District Court for further proceedings.
Although Atlanta’s commendable effort to effect desegregation is recognized, the District Court on remand must, of course, test the entire Atlanta plan by the considerations discussed in Watson v. City of Memphis, 373 U. S. 526, 529; Goss v. Board of Education, 373 U. S. 683; and Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, ante, at 218, decided subsequent to the District Court’s approval of the plan. In Goss, supra, at 689, we said:
“[W]e are not unmindful of the deep-rooted problems involved. Indeed, it was consideration for the multifarious local difficulties and ‘variety of obstacles’ which might arise in this transition that led this Court eight years ago to frame its mandate in Brown in such language as ‘good faith compliance at the earliest practicable date’ and ‘all deliberate speed.’ Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S., at 300, 301. Now, however, eight years after this decree was rendered and over nine years after the first Brown decision, the context in which we must interpret and apply this language to plans for desegregation has been significantly altered. Compare Watson v. City of Memphis, supra.”
Vacated and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (24 total)
-
Green v. Cnty. Sch. Bd. of New Kent Cnty., 391 U.S. 430 (U.S. 1968)…chool Board, 377 U. S. 218, 234; “the context in which we must interpret and apply this language [of Brown II] to plans for desegregation has been significantly altered.” [*439] Goss v. Board of Education, 373 U. S. 683, 689. See Calhoun v. Latimer, 377 U. S. 263. The burden on a school board today is to come forward with a plan that promises realistically to work, and promises realistically to work now. The obligation of the district courts, as it always has been, is to assess the effectiveness of a propos…
-
Jones et ux. v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (U.S. 1968)…361 U. S. 197 (Arkansas statute cutting off state funds to integrated school districts); James v. Almond, 170 F. Supp. 331 (D. C. E. D. Va. 1959) (closing of all integrated public schools). See also Rogers v. Paul, 382 U. S. 198; Calhoun v. Latimer, 377 U. S. 263; Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U. S. 1. My Brother Harlan’s listing of some of the “customs” prevailing in the North at the time § 1982 was first enacted shows the extent of organized white discrimination against newly freed blacks. As he states, “ [residen…
-
United States & Linda Stout v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. OF Educ., 380 F.2d 385 (5th Cir. 1967)…school cases on old records is very unsatisfactory. We do not know what changes in desegregation plans may have been made in the interim. It is a rapidly changing public area where plans as well as the law are in flux. Cf. Calhoun v. Latimer, 1964, 377 U.S. 263, 84 S.Ct. 1235, 12 L.Ed.2d 288, where the court took note of a supervening plan and remanded for an evidentiary hearing in the District Court. . Section 602 of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USCA, § 2000d-1 provides that no rule, regu…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 24 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Watson v. City OF Memphis, 373 U.S. 526 (U.S. 1963)
- Goss v. Bd. of Educ. of Knoxville, 373 U.S. 683 (U.S. 1963)