Missouri v. Jenkins

Media Items
Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Allen R. Snyder (Argued the cause for the respondents)
H. Bartow Farr, III (Argued the cause for the petitioners)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
88-1150
Petitioner: 
Missouri
Respondent: 
Jenkins
Opinion: 
495 U.S. 33 (1990)
Categories: 
tenth amendment, jurisdiction, race, education, equal protection, race discrimination, discrimination

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Missouri v. Jenkins , 495 U.S. 33 (1990)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1150)
Facts of the Case: 

In order to combat segregation in public schools in compliance with court directives, the Kansas City, Missouri School District (KCMSD) sought to enhance the quality of schools and to attract more white students from the suburbs. The KCMSD's ability to raise taxes, however, was limited by state law. After determining that the District did not have alternative means of raising revenue for the program, federal district judge Russell G. Clark ordered an increase of local property taxes for the 1991-92 fiscal year. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the decision, but ruled that the courts should enjoin state tax laws that prevented the District from raising the necessary funds and allow the state to set tax rates.

Question: 

Did the court order to increase property taxes violate Article III, the Tenth Amendment, or principles of federal/state comity?

Conclusion: 

The Court held that the District Court "abused its discretion" by imposing a specific tax increase. The Court also held, however, that the modifications of the District Court's order made by the Court of Appeals satisfied "equitable and constitutional principles governing the District Court's power...." The majority found that court orders directing local governments to levy their own taxes were "plainly" judicial acts within the powers of federal courts. When a constitutional justification existed, courts had the authority to order tax increases despite statutory limitations. The Court reasoned that "[t]o hold otherwise would fail to take account of the obligations of local governments, under the Supremacy Clause, to fulfill the requirements that the Constitution imposes on them."

Decisions

Decision: 5 votes for Jenkins, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Appellate Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

Sort by Ideology

Voted with the minority, joined Kennedy's dissent
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Brennan
Wrote the majority opinion
White
Voted with the majority
Marshall
Voted with the majority
Blackmun
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the minority, joined Kennedy's dissent
O'Connor
Voted with the minority, joined Kennedy's dissent
Scalia
Wrote a dissent
Kennedy

Full Opinion by Justice Byron R. White