The Oyez Project: Civil Rights Issues - Desegregation, Schools Decisions

Alexander v. Board Of Education

No details yet.

Board of Ed. of Oklahoma City v. Dowell

No details yet.

Board Of Education v. Swann

No details yet.

Board Of Education, New York City v. Harris

No details yet.

Bob Jones University v. U. S.

Can the government prohibit race discrimination at the expense of the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clauses?

The Court found that the IRS was correct in its decision to revoke the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University and the Goldsboro Christian School. These institutions did not meet the requirement by providing "beneficial and stabilizing influences in community life" to be supported by taxpayers with a special tax status. The schools could not meet this requirement due to their discriminatory policies. The Court declared that racial discrimination in education violated a "fundamental national public policy." The government may justify a limitation on religious liberties by showing it is necessary to accomplish an "overriding governmental interest." Prohibiting racial discrimination was such a governmental interest. Hence, the Court found that "not all burdens on religion are unconstitutional."

Bolling v. Sharpe

Did the segregation of the public schools of Washington D.C. violate the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment?

Yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court found that racial discrimination in the public schools of Washington D.C. denied blacks due process of law as protected by the Fifth Amendment. Noting the legal peculiarities of the District of Columbia, Chief Justice Warren recognized that the Fifth Amendment (which applied to the District) did not contain an equal protection clause while the Fourteenth Amendment (which was used as the standard for outlawing school desegregation in Brown v. Board of Education) did. Lacking an equal protection standard to invalidate the District's segregation, Warren creatively relied on the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of "liberty" to find the segregation of the Washington D.C. schools unconstitutional.

Brown v. Board of Education (I)

Does the segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprive the minority children of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment?

Yes. Despite the equalization of the schools by "objective" factors, intangible issues foster and maintain inequality. Racial segregation in public education has a detrimental effect on minority children because it is interpreted as a sign of inferiority. The long-held doctrine that separate facilities were permissible provided they were equal was rejected. Separate but equal is inherently unequal in the context of public education. The unanimous opinion sounded the death-knell for all forms of state-maintained racial separation.

Brown v. Board of Education (II)

What means should be used to implement the principles announced in Brown I?

The Court held that the problems identified in Brown I required varied local solutions. Chief Justice Warren conferred much responsibility on local school authorities and the courts which originally heard school segregation cases. They were to implement the principles which the Supreme Court embraced in its first Brown decision. Warren urged localities to act on the new principles promptly and to move toward full compliance with them "with all deliberate speed."

Calhoun v. Latimer

No details yet.

Columbus Board Of Education v. Penick

No details yet.

Cooper v. Aaron

Were Arkansas officials bound by federal court orders mandating desegregation?

In a signed, unanimous per curiam opinion, the Court held that the Arkansas officials were bound by federal court orders that rested on the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education. The Court noted that its interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment in Brown was the supreme law of the land and that it had a "binding effect" on the states. The Court reaffirmed its commitment to desegregation and reiterated that legislatures are not at liberty to annul judgments of the Court.

Crawford v. Los Angeles Board Of Education

No details yet.

Davis v. School Comm'rs Of Mobile County

No details yet.

Dayton Board Of Education v. Brinkman

No details yet.

Dayton Board Of Education v. Brinkman

No details yet.

Freeman v. Pitts

No details yet.

Gilmore v. City Of Montgomery

No details yet.

Goss v. Board Of Education

No details yet.

Green v. County School Board

No details yet.

Griffin v. School Board

No details yet.

Keyes v. School District No. 1

Did the segregation in Denver involve all of the city's schools and violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

The Court modified and remanded the lower court decision and held that when part of a school system is found to be segregated, a "prima facie case of unlawful [systematic] segregative design" becomes apparent. The school district involved assumes the burden of proving that it operated without "segregative intent" on a system-wide basis. This case is significant because it represents one of the first instances in which the Court identified segregation in northern schools.

Lau v. Nichols

No details yet.

Mcdaniel v. Barresi

No details yet.

Mcneese v. Board Of Education

No details yet.

Milliken v. Bradley

Did federal courts have the authority to impose a multi-district desegregation plan on schools outside the Detroit area?

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that "[w]ith no showing of significant violation by the 53 outlying school districts and no evidence of any interdistrict violation or effect," the district court's remedy was "wholly impermissible" and not justified by Brown v. Board of Education. The Court noted that desegregation, "in the sense of dismantling a dual school system," did not require "any particular racial balance in each 'school, grade or classroom.'" The Court also emphasized the importance of local control over the operation of schools.

Milliken v. Bradley

No details yet.

Missouri v. Jenkins

No details yet.

Monroe v. Board Of Commissioners

No details yet.

Norwood v. Harrison

No details yet.

Papasan v. Allain

No details yet.

Pennsylvania v. Board Of Trusts

No details yet.

Raney v. Board Of Education

No details yet.

Richmond School Board v. Board Of Educ.

No details yet.

Rogers v. Paul

No details yet.

Runyon v. Mccrary

No details yet.

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed.

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

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.

U.S. v. Montgomery Bd. Of Educ.

No details yet.

United States v. Fordice

Has Mississippi met its affirmative duty under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause to dismantle its prior dual university system?

No. A state's duty is not discharged "until it eradicates policies and practices traceable to its prior de jure dual system that continues to foster segregation." Race-neutral admissions are not a sufficient corrective to constitutional violations of a dual system. Different admissions criteria, and different missions for university system components, may have racially discriminatory effects perpetuating the old system. The Court did not declare the present system unconstitutional, only that Mississippi had not done enough to eliminate segregation. The Justices turned the matter back to state officials -- and to the courts -- to determine what must be done to fulfill its duty under the Constitution.

United States v. Scotland Neck Bd. Of Educ.

No details yet.

Washington v. Seattle School District No. 1

Does the statewide initiative violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Yes. The initiative reordered the educational decisionmaking process by moving the power over busing for purposes of integration to state control. The state explicitly employed "the racial nature of a decision to determine the decisionmaking process." This kind of state action places an unconstitutional burden on racial minorities within the governmental process.

Wright v. Council Of City Of Emporia

No details yet.