CORPUS CHRISTI SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL.
v.
CISNEROS 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.
A federal district judge in Corpus Christi, Texas ordered a school district to cease discriminatory practices against students based on race or color, but a different district judge subsequently granted a stay of that order, which was then vacated by a panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Justice Black, acting as a single justice, reinstated the district court's stay pending further appellate review, finding the procedural situation sufficiently confused and presenting novel questions that warranted full Court consideration rather than resolution by a single justice.
[1] A single Justice may reinstate a district court's stay of its own order pending further appellate review.
[2] A Circuit Justice may decline to upset a district court's stay when the case presents anomalous, new, and confusing situations requiring full Court consideration.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Black,
Circuit Justice.
The District Judge in this case ordered the Corpus Christi Independent School District to stop alleged historical practices of discrimination against school children on the basis of race or color. He directed how this was to be accomplished, saying at the same time that he would grant no stays of his order. The school district asked the court to stay its order and a stay was granted by a different district judge who had been assigned to hear the application. The plaintiffs, parents of the students allegedly discriminated against, then asked the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to vacate the stay. A panel of two Circuit Court judges did vacate the stay. The school district then applied to me as a single Justice to reinstate the stay issued by the District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The Solicitor General of the United States has joined in requesting me as a single Justice to reinstate that stay. If I reinstate the stay, the District Court’s order will not go into effect until the Fifth Circuit or this Court has had an opportunity to pass on it.
It is apparent that this case is in an undesirable state of confusion and presents questions not heretofore passed on by the full Court, but which should be. Under these circumstances, which present a very anomalous, new, and confusing situation, I decline as a single Justice to upset the District Court’s stay and, therefore, I reinstate it without expressing any view as to the wisdom or propriety of the Solicitor General’s position. The stay will be reinstated pending action on the merits in the Fifth Circuit or action by the full Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cisneros v. Corpus Christi Indep. Sch. Dist., 467 F.2d 142 (5th Cir. 1972)…and Members of the Board of Trustees of the District. In Texas, the Board of Trustees is charged with the operation of free public education systems and it is primarily the actions and policies of the Board to which we refer in this appeal. . 1971, 404 U.S. 1211, 92 S.Ct. 9, 30 L.Ed. 2d 15. . Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3-A and the defendant’s Exhibit 4 contain descriptions of the ethnic distribution of students and teachers within the school system. The trial court found these exhibits to reflect substantially th…
-
Kinney Kinmon LAU v. Nichols, 483 F.2d 791 (9th Cir. 1973)…35, 1239, 1241-1242 (D.N.J.1971), aff’d mem., 404 U.S. 1027, 92 S.Ct. 707, 30 L.Ed.2d' 723 (1972) ; Cisneros v. School District, 324 F.Supp. 599, 616-20 (S.D.Tex.1970), supplemented by 330 F.Supp. 1377, application for reinstatement of stay granted, 404 U.S. 1211, 92 S.Ct. 9, 30 L. Ed.2d 15 (1971), aff'd in part, modified in part and remanded, 467 F. 2d 142 (5th Cir. 1972); United States v. Texas, 321 F.Supp. 1043 (E.D.Tex.1970), supplemented by 330 F.Supp. 235, aff’d, 447 F. 2d 441 (5th Cir. 1971), applicat…1 / 2