ROGERS ET AL.
v.
PAUL 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.
Students denied transfer to a high school with a more extensive curriculum due to race are entitled to immediate relief, and students not yet in desegregated grades have standing to challenge racial faculty allocation.
This class action sought to desegregate high schools in Fort Smith, Arkansas. Students were assigned to a Negro high school based on race, preventing …
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 Equal Educational Opportunity cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
The petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the motion to add parties are granted. The judgment of that court is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court for the Western District of Arkansas for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
1. This class action to desegregate the public high schools of Fort Smith, Arkansas, was commenced several years ago in the name of two Negro students. One of the students has since graduated and the other has entered the last high school grade. A motion to add parties is made on behalf of two additional Negro students. It is alleged therein, and not denied by respondents, that these students are in the 10th and 11th grades of high school and that they are members of the class represented, seeking the same relief for all the reasons offered by the original party plaintiffs. That motion is accordingly granted.
2. The desegregation plan adopted in 1957 desegregates only one grade a year and the 10th, 11th and 12th high school grades are still segregated. The students who are petitioners here were assigned to a Negro high school on the basis of their race.* Those assignments are constitutionally forbidden not only for the reasons stated in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483, but also because petitioners are thereby prevented from taking certain courses offered only at another high school limited to white students, see Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U. S. 337; Sipuel v. Board of Regents, 332 U. S. 631; Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U. S. 629. Petitioners are entitled to immediate relief; we have emphasized that “[d]elays in desegregating school systems are no longer tolerable.” Bradley v. School Board, ante, p. 103, at 105. Pending the desegregation of the public high schools of Fort Smith according to a general plan consistent with this principle, petitioners and those similarly-situated shall be allowed immediate transfer to the high school that has the more extensive curriculum and from which they are excluded because of their race.
3. From the outset of these proceedings petitioners have challenged an alleged policy of respondents of allocating faculty on a racial basis. The District Court took the view that petitioners were without standing to challenge the alleged policy, and accordingly refused to permit any inquiry into the matter. The Court of Appeals sustained this ruling, holding that only students presently in desegregated grades would have the standing to make that challenge. 345 F. 2d 117, 125. We do not agree and remand for a prompt evidentiary hearing on this issue.
Even the Court of Appeals’ requirement for standing would be met on remand since petitioners’ transfer to the white high school would desegregate their grades to that limited extent. Moreover, we reject the Court of Appeals’ view of standing as being unduly restrictive. Two theories would give students not yet in desegregated grades sufficient interest to challenge racial allocation of faculty: (1) that racial allocation of faculty denies them equality of educational opportunity without regard to segregation of pupils; and (2) that it renders inadequate an otherwise constitutional pupil desegregation plan soon to be applied to their grades. See Bradley v. School Board, supra. Petitioners plainly had standing to challenge racial allocation of faculty under the first theory and thus they were improperly denied a hearing on this issue'
Vacated and remanded.
Mr. Justice Clark, Mr. Justice Harlan, Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Fortas would set the case down for argument and plenary consideration.
*
The constitutional adequacy of the method chosen for assigning students to the schools for purpose of desegregating the lower grades is not before us, and the method contemplated for the high schools is not part of the record.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (46 total)
-
Jones et ux. v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (U.S. 1968)…), aff’d sub nom. Faubus v. Aaron, 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 fre…
-
United States & Linda Stout v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. OF Educ., 372 F.2d 836 (5th Cir. 1966)…ulty allocation on an alleged racial basis and the adequacy of the desegregation plans are entirely speculative.” Moreover, “Delays in desegregating school systems are no longer tolerable.” 382 U.S. at 105, 86 S. Ct. at 226. In Rogers v. Paul, 1965, 382 U.S. 198, 200, 86 S.Ct. 358, 360, 15 L. Ed.2d 265, the Supreme Court held that Negro students in grades not yet desegregated were entitled to an immediate transfer to a white high school. They “plainly had standing” to sue on two theories: (1) “that racial a…1 / 5
-
United States & Linda Stout v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. OF Educ., 380 F.2d 385 (5th Cir. 1967)…fused to act without an evidentiary hearing. In both decisions the cases were remanded to the district court “for evidentiary hearings.” Bradley v. School Bd., City of Richmond (1965) 382 U.S. 103, 86 S.Ct. 224, 15 L.Ed.2d 187; Rogers v. Paul (1965) 382 U.S. 198, 86 S.Ct. 358, 15 L.Ed.2d 265. Similarly, in Calhoun v. Latimer (1964) 377 U.S. 263, 84 S.Ct. 1235, 12 L.Ed.2d 288, the Court had for consideration a desegregation plan of the Atlanta Board of Education. During the argument before the Supreme Court…
Previewing 3 of 46 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)
- Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (U.S. 1950)
- Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337 (U.S. 1938)
- Sipuel v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Okla., 332 U.S. 631 (U.S. 1948)
- Rogers v. Paul, 345 F.2d 117 (8th Cir. 1965)