BRADLEY ET AL.
v.
SCHOOL BOARD OF CITY OF RICHMOND 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 school desegregation plans cannot be approved without full evidentiary hearings on the impact of faculty allocation on an alleged racial basis.
District courts approved desegregation plans without considering petitioners' claims that faculty allocation on a racial basis rendered the plans inad…
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 All Deliberate Speed cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
The petitions for writs of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit are granted for the purpose of deciding whether it is proper to approve school desegregation plans without considering, at a full evi-dentiary hearing, the impact on those plans of faculty allocation on an alleged racial basis. We hold that the Court of Appeals erred in both these cases in this regard, 345 F. 2d 310, 319-321; 345 F. 2d 325, 328.
Plans for desegregating the public school systems of Hopewell and Richmond, Virginia, were approved by the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia without full inquiry into petitioners’ contention that faculty allocation on an alleged racial basis rendered the plans inadequate under the principles of Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483. The Court of Appeals, while recognizing the standing of petitioners, as parents and pupils, to raise this contention, declined to decide its merits because no evidentiary hearings had been held on this issue. But instead of remanding the cases for such hearings prior to final approval of the plans, the Court of Appeals held that “[wjhether and when such an inquiry is to be had are matters with respect to which the District Court . . . has a large measure of discretion,” and it reasoned as follows:
“When direct measures are employed to eliminate all direct discrimination in the assignment of pupils, a District Court may defer inquiry as to the appropriateness of supplemental measures until the effect and the sufficiency of the direct ones may be determined. The possible relation of a reassignment of teachers to protection of the constitutional rights of pupils need not be determined when it is speculative. When all direct discrimination in the assignment of pupils has been eliminated, assignment of teachers may be expected to follow the racial patterns established in the schools. An earlier judicial requirement of general reassignment of all teaching and administrative personnel need not be considered until the possible detrimental effects of such an order upon the administration of the schools and the efficiency of their staffs can be appraised along with the need for such an order in aid of protection of the constitutional rights of pupils.” 345 F. 2d, at 320-321. We hold that petitioners were entitled to such full evidentiary hearings upon their contention. There is no merit to the suggestion that the relation between faculty allocation on an alleged racial basis and the adequacy of the desegregation plans is entirely speculative. Nor can we perceive any reason for postponing these hearings: Each plan had been in operation for at least one academic year; these suits had been pending for several years; and more than a decade has passed since we directed desegregation of public school facilities “with all deliberate speed,” Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294, 301. Delays in desegregating school systems are no longer tolerable. Goss v. Board of Education, 373 U. S. 683, 689; Calhoun v. Latimer, 377 U. S. 263, 264-265; see Watson v. City of Memphis, 373 U. S. 526.
The judgments of the Court of Appeals are vacated and the cases are remanded to the District Court for evidentiary hearings consistent with this opinion. We, of course, express no views of the merits of the desegregation plans submitted, nor is further judicial review precluded in these cases following the hearings.
Vacated rnd remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (52 total)
-
Bradley v. Sch. Bd. of the City of Richmond, 416 U.S. 696 (U.S. 1974)…r in the trial court’s refusal to allow the plaintiffs’ attorneys more than a nominal fee ($75). Id,., at 321. The dissenters referred to the fee as “egregiously inadequate.” Id., at 324. On petition for a writ-of certiorari, this Court, per curiam, 382 U. S. 103 (1965), summarily held that the petitioners improperly had been denied a full evidentiary hearing on their claim that a racially based faculty allocation system rendered the plan constitutionally inadequate under Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.…
-
Green v. Cnty. Sch. Bd. of New Kent Cnty., 391 U.S. 430 (U.S. 1968)…clearly charged with the affirmative duty to take whatever steps might be necessary to [*438] convert to a unitary system in which racial discrimination would be eliminated root and branch. See Cooper v. Aaron, supra, at 7; Bradley v. School Board, 382 U. S. 103; cf. Watson v. City of Memphis, 373 TJ. S. 526. The constitutional rights of Negro school children articulated in Brown I permit no less than this; and it was to this end that Brown II commanded school boards to bend their efforts.4 In determining…
-
Jones et ux. v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (U.S. 1968)…s, 391 U. S. 450 (Tennessee “free-transfer” plan); Green v. County School Board, 391 U. S. 430 (Virginia school board “freedom-of-choice” plan); Raney v. Board of Education, 391 U. S. 443 (Arkansas “freedom-of-choice” plan); Bradley v. School Board, 382 U. S. 103 (allocation of faculty allegedly on a racial basis); Griffin v. School Board, 377 U. S. 218 (closing of public schools in Prince Edward County, Virginia, with tuition grants and tax concessions used to assist white children attending private segrega…
Previewing 3 of 52 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brown v. Bd. of Educ. of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (U.S. 1954)
- Brown v. Bd. of Educ. of Topeka, 349 U.S. 294 (U.S. 1955)
- 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)
- Calhoun v. Latimer, 377 U.S. 263 (U.S. 1964)
- Bradley v. The Sch. Bd. OF the City OF Richmond, 345 F.2d 310 (4th Cir. 1965)
- Gilliam v. Sch. Bd. OF the City OF Hopewell, 345 F.2d 325 (4th Cir. 1965)