Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed.

Media Items
Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Julius LeVonne Chambers (Argued the cause for petitioners in No. 281 and respondents in No. 349)
James M. Nabrit, III (Argued the cause for petitioners in No. 281 and respondents in No. 349)
Benjamin S. Horack (Argued the cause for respondents in No. 281 and petitioners in No. 349)
Erwin N. Griswold (Argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae in both cases)
William J. Wagonner (Argued the cause for respondents in No. 281 and petitioners in No. 349)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
281
Petitioner: 
Swann
Respondent: 
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed.
Consolidation: 
No. 349
Decided By: 
Burger Court (1970-1971)
Opinion: 
402 U.S. 1 (1971)
Categories: 
segregation, race, education, equal protection, race discrimination, discrimination

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed. , 402 U.S. 1 (1971)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_281)
Facts of the Case: 

After the Supreme Court's decision in 1954 in Brown v. Board of Education, little progress had been made in desegregating public schools. One example was the Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina, system in which approximately 14,000 black students attended schools that were either totally black or more than 99 percent black. Lower courts had experimented with a number of possible solutions when the case reached the Supreme Court.

Question: 

Were federal courts constitutionally authorized to oversee and produce remedies for state-imposed segregation?

Conclusion: 

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that once violations of previous mandates directed at desegregating schools had occurred, the scope of district courts' equitable powers to remedy past wrongs were broad and flexible. The Court ruled that 1) remedial plans were to be judged by their effectiveness, and the use of mathematical ratios or quotas were legitimate "starting points" for solutions; 2) predominantly or exclusively black schools required close scrutiny by courts; 3) non-contiguous attendance zones, as interim corrective measures, were within the courts' remedial powers; and 4) no rigid guidelines could be established concerning busing of students to particular schools.

Decisions

Decision: 9 votes for Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed., 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

Sort by Seniority

Voted with the majority
Douglas
Voted with the majority
Brennan
Voted with the majority
Marshall
Voted with the majority
Black
Voted with the majority
Harlan
Voted with the majority
Stewart
Voted with the majority
White
Voted with the majority
Blackmun
Wrote the majority opinion
Burger

Full Opinion by Justice Warren E. Burger