document resume - eric · document resume ed 095 241 lid 014 513 title united states of america,...
TRANSCRIPT
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 095 241 LID 014 513
TITLE United States of America, Buckley, et. al. V. Boardof School Commissioners of the City of Indianapolis,Indiana, et. al.
INSTITUTION Court of Appeals. Seventh Circuit.PUB DATE 21 Aug 74NOTE 14p.
EDRS PRICE MF-$0.75 HC-$1.50 PLUS POSTAGEDESCRIPTORS *Court Cases; Defacto Segregation; Dejure
Segregation; *Federal Court Litigation; FederalGovernment; Federal Laws; *Integration Litigation;Law Enforcement; Racial Balance; School Districts;*School Integration; *Student Placement; TeacherPlacement; Urban Education
IDENTIFIERS Buckley V Indianapolis Board School Commissioners;*Indiana; Indianapolis
ABSTRACTThis is a school desegregation case originally
brought by the United States against the Board of SchoolCommissioners of Indianapolis, Indiana, but later expanded to includeas defendants school districts located in the surroundingmetropolitan area. These 17 separate appeals raise a host ofdivergent issues. The United States initiated this action on May 31,1968, pursuant to sections of Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of1964. The complaint charged the Board of School Commissioners for theCity of Indianapolis with racial discrimination in the assignment offaculty and students. The faculty portion of the charge was resolvedfirst. Public school teachers in Indianapolis then obtained .atemporary restraining order to prevent transfers of teachers andstaff without the consent of the teachers involved. Defendant schoolboard and its members removed the case to the federal district court,which promptly dissolved the restraining order. The student portionof the 1968 case was tried before the court on July 12-21, 1971. Inaccordance with "Brown v. Board of Education," the court found thatthe Indianapolis school board was deliberately operating a de juredual school system on May 17, 1954, and had not changed its policiesin order to eliminate de jure segregation on or before May 31, 1968.Heard by Judges Swygert, Kiley, and Sprecher. Appealed from DistrictCourt for Southern District of Indiana (Case No. IP 68-C-225).(Author/JM)
cJ
c:rC7
La
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
3n tbe
Eniteb ' taste. (Court of Ztpptallfor tbe atbentb Circa
Nos. 73-196S through 73 -19S4-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,DON NY BRURELL BUCKLEY, et al.,
Intervening Plantiffs-Appellees,v.
BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERSOF THE CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS,INDIANA, et al.,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeals from theUnited States Dis-trict Court for theSouthern Di strictof Indiana, Indian-apolis Division.No. IP 68-C-225S. HUGH DILLIN,
Judge.
ARGUED FEBRUARY 20, 1974 DECIDED AUGUST 21, 1974
Before SWYGERT, Chief Judge, KILEY, Senior CircuitJudge, and SPRECHER, Circuit Judge.
SPR:ECHER, Circuit Judge. This is a school desegregationcase originally brought by the United States againstthe Bortrd of School Commissioners of Indianapolis,Indiana, but later expanded to include as defendantsschool districts located in the surrounding metropolitanarea. These 17 separate appeals raise a host of divergentissues.
ITHE BACKGROUND
.The United States initiated this action on May 31, 1968,pursuant to section 407(a) and (b) of Title IV of theCivil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000c-6(a) and(b)). The complaint charged the Board of School Com-
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,EDUCATION & WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
EDUCATIONTHIS DOCUE:NT At. "FEN REPRODUCE° EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINAilrir; r POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFF iCIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY
.73
-196
8 th
roug
h 73
-198
42
mis
sion
ers
for
the
City
of
Indi
anap
olis
with
rac
ial .
dis-
elim
inat
ion
in th
e as
sign
men
t of
facu
lty a
nd s
tude
nts.
The
fac
ulty
por
tion
of th
e ch
arge
was
res
olve
d fi
rst.
On
Aug
ust 5
, 196
8, th
e di
stri
ct c
ourt
con
clud
ed (
purs
uant
to s
tipul
atio
n by
the
part
ies
that
rac
ial f
acto
rs h
ad b
een
cons
ider
ed in
the
assi
gnm
ent o
f te
ache
rs a
nd s
taff
mem
-be
rs)
that
rac
ial c
ompo
sitio
n of
fac
ulty
and
sta
ff d
epri
ved
stud
ents
of
equa
l pro
tect
ion
in v
iola
tion
of th
e Fo
urte
enth
Am
endm
ent.
The
cou
rt e
nter
ed a
con
sent
dec
ree
orde
ring
rem
edia
l inj
unct
ive
relie
f co
mm
enci
ng w
ith th
e sc
hool
year
of
1968
-69.
Fac
ulty
and
sta
ff d
eseg
rega
tion
is o
ne"i
mpo
rtan
t asp
ect o
f th
e ba
sic
task
of
achi
evin
ga
publ
icsc
hool
sys
tem
who
lly f
ree
from
rac
ial d
iscr
imin
atio
n".
Uni
ted
Stat
es v
. Mon
tgom
ery
Cou
nty
Boa
rd o
f E
duca
tion,
395
U.S
. 225
, 232
(19
69).
Publ
ic s
choo
l tea
cher
s in
Ind
iana
polis
then
bro
ught
a cl
ass
actio
n in
an
Indi
ana
stat
e co
urt a
nd o
btai
ned
a te
mpo
rary
res
trai
ning
ord
er to
pre
vent
tran
sfer
s of
teac
hers
and
sta
ff w
ithou
t the
con
sent
of
the
teac
hers
invo
lved
. Def
enda
nt s
choo
l hoa
rd a
nd it
sm
embe
rs r
e-m
oved
the
case
toth
efe
dera
ldi
stri
ctco
urt,
whi
chpr
ompt
ly d
isso
lved
the
rest
rain
ing
orde
r. B
urns
v. B
oard
of S
choo
l Com
mis
sion
ers,
302
F. S
upp.
309
(S.D
. Inc
l.1.
969)
, ard
, 437
F.2
d 11
.43
(7th
Cir
. 1.9
71.)
.T
he-
stud
ent p
ortio
n of
the
1968
case
was
trie
d be
fore
the
cour
t on
July
1.2
-21,
- 19
71. I
n ac
cord
ance
with
Bro
wn
v. B
oard
of
Edu
catio
n (B
row
n. I
), 3
47 U
.S. 4
83 (
1.95
4),
the
cour
t fou
nd th
at th
e In
dian
apol
is s
choo
l .bo
ard
was
delib
erat
ely
oper
atin
g a
de ju
re d
ual s
choo
lsy
stem
,.. o
nM
ay 1
7, 1
954
(the
dat
e of
Bro
wn
I), a
nd h
adno
t cha
nged
its p
olic
ies
in o
rder
to e
limin
ate
deju
re s
egre
gatio
non
or
hefo
re M
ay 3
1, 1
968
(the
dat
e of
the
gove
rnm
ent's
com
plai
nt).
Pur
suan
t to
Bro
wn
.v. B
oard
of
Edu
catio
n(B
row
n II
), 3
49 U
.S. 2
94 (
1955
), th
eco
urt o
n A
ugus
t18
, 1.9
71 o
rder
ed in
teri
m r
elie
f, r
etai
ned
juri
sdic
tion
toor
der
furt
her
relie
f an
d di
rect
ed th
e sc
hool
boar
d to
file
plan
s of
aff
imat
ive
actio
n fo
r th
e sc
hool
year
197
1-72
as r
equi
red
by G
reen
v. C
ount
y Sc
hool
Boa
rd, 3
91 U
.S.
403,
437
-38
(196
8). (
"Sch
ool b
oard
s.
.. w
ere
..
clea
rly
char
ged
with
the
affi
rmat
ive
duty
to ta
ke w
hate
ver
step
sm
ight
be
nece
ssar
y to
con
vert
to a
uni
tary
sys
tem
in
373
-196
8 th
roug
h 73
-198
4
whi
ch r
acia
l dis
crim
inat
ion
wou
ld h
e el
imin
ated
roo
t. an
dbr
anch
.")
Uni
ted
Stat
es v
. Boa
rd. o
f Sc
hool
Com
mis
sion
ers
(Ind
iana
polis
I),
332
F. S
upp.
655
(S.D
. Ind
.19
71),
ard,
474
F.2
d. 8
1. (
7th
Cir
.), c
ert.
deni
ed, 4
13 -
U.S
. 9f.
0(1
973)
.
In I
ndia
napo
lis I
, the
cou
rt c
oncl
uded
that
the
com
mon
law
of
Indi
ana
was
that
the
boun
dari
es o
f a
scho
ol d
istr
ict
and
of a
civ
il ci
ty w
ere
cote
rmin
ous,
a r
ule
fina
lly r
ecog
-ni
zed
by s
tatu
te in
193
1.1
Stat
utes
pas
sed
in 1
961.
2 an
din
196
95 p
rovi
ded
that
, if
Indi
anap
olis
' bou
ndar
ies
wer
eex
tend
ed, t
hose
of
its s
choo
l dis
tric
t cou
ld li
kew
ise
beex
pand
ed. S
uch
expa
nsio
n, h
owev
er, w
ould
be
subj
ect t
oa
sepa
rate
rem
onst
ranc
e or
vet
o by
a s
peci
fied
per
cent
age
of p
erso
ns a
ffec
ted.
In 1
969,
aft
er th
is s
uit h
ad b
een
com
men
ced,
the
civi
lgo
vern
men
ts o
f th
e C
ity o
f In
dian
apol
is a
nd o
f M
ario
nC
ount
y w
ere
cons
olid
ated
into
a u
nifi
ed, m
etro
polit
anci
ty g
over
nmen
t by
the
so-c
alle
d U
ni-G
ov A
ct.,
whi
chex
pres
sly
prov
ides
that
the
Indi
anap
olis
sch
ool d
istr
ict
wou
ld n
ot b
e af
fect
ed b
y th
e ex
pans
ion
of th
e ci
ty.'
Inot
her
wor
ds, t
he s
choo
ldi
stri
ct(o
r Sc
hool
City
)of
Indi
anap
olis
was
con
fine
d to
an
area
in th
e ce
ntra
l par
tof
the
new
Uni
-Gov
, whe
re it
is s
urro
unde
d by
eig
htto
wns
hip
scho
ol s
yste
ms
and
by tw
o ad
ditio
nal c
ity' s
choo
lco
rpor
atio
ns (
Bee
ch G
rove
and
Spe
edw
ay C
ity),
all
op-
erat
ing
inde
pend
ently
with
in th
e ne
w u
nifi
ed C
ity o
fIn
dian
apol
is a
nd w
ithin
Mar
ion
Cou
nty.
The
dis
tric
t cou
rt c
oncl
uded
that
"th
e ea
sy w
ay o
ut. .
.wou
ld b
e to
ord
er a
mas
sive
'fru
it ba
sket
' scr
ambl
ing
of s
tude
nts
with
in th
e Sc
hool
City
," b
ut "
it w
on't
wor
k."
Res
egre
gatio
n w
ould
rap
idly
occ
ur b
ecau
se o
f a
whi
teex
odus
fro
m w
hat w
ould
be
subs
tant
ially
bla
ck s
choo
ls.
The
res
egre
gatio
n pr
oble
m "
wou
ld p
ale
into
insi
gnif
ican
ceif
the
Iseh
ooli
Boa
rd's
juri
sdic
tion
wer
e co
term
inou
s w
ithth
at o
f U
ni-G
ov"
and
"wou
ld b
e m
inim
ized
stil
l fur
ther
1 A
cts
1931
, Ch.
94,
§ 1
, p. 2
91; B
urns
Ind
. Sta
t. A
nn. §
28-
2301
(19
48R
epl.)
, I.C
. 197
1, 2
0-3-
11-1
.2
Act
s 19
61, C
h. 1
86, §
§ 1,
9, 1
0; B
urns
Ind
. Sta
t. A
nn. §
§ 28
-233
8,28
-234
6, 2
8-23
47 (
1968
Cum
. Sup
p.),
I.C
. 197
1, 2
0-3-
14-1
, 20-
3-14
-10.
3 A
cts
1969
, Ch.
52,
§ 3
, p. 5
7; B
urns
Ind
, Sta
t. A
nn. §
28-
2346
a (1
970
Cum
. Sup
p.),
I.C
. 197
1, 2
0-3-
14-9
.*
Act
s 19
69, C
h. 1
73, §
314
, p. 3
57; B
urns
Ind
. Sta
t. A
nn. §
48-
9214
(197
0 C
um. S
upp.
), I
.G. 1
9711
18-
4 -
3 -1
4,
r.
73-1
968
thro
ugh
73-1
984
4
if e
xten
ded
to.
..
Bee
ch G
rove
and
Spe
edw
ay C
ity, a
ndto
cer
tain
par
ts o
f th
e ad
join
ing
coun
ties
prac
tical
lyin
dist
ingu
isha
ble
from
the
City
of
Indi
anap
olis
..
.."
The
cour
t ord
ered
the
Uni
ted
Stat
es a
s pl
aint
iff
to jo
inas
addi
tiona
l par
ties
defe
ndan
t the
mun
icip
al c
orpo
ratio
nsan
d sc
hool
cor
pora
tions
whi
ch w
ould
hav
ean
inte
rest
in th
e co
urt's
inte
nded
con
side
ratio
n of
the
entir
em
etro
-ol
itan
area
. 332
F. S
tipp.
at 6
78-8
0.O
n Se
ptem
ber
7, 1
971,
the
Uni
ted
Stat
es m
oved
to a
ddas
par
ties
defe
ndan
t all
scho
ol c
orpo
ratio
ns in
Mar
ion
Cou
nty
(eig
ht to
wns
hips
and
two
city
cor
pora
tions
). A
few
day
s la
ter,
the
cour
t per
mitt
ed th
e B
uckl
ey p
lain
tiffs
Don
ny B
rure
ll B
uckl
ey a
nd A
ylci
a M
arqu
ese
Buc
kley
by th
eir
pare
nts
and
next
fri
end,
Rub
y L
. Buc
kley
)to
inte
rven
e in
thei
r ow
n ri
ght a
ndas
rep
rese
ntat
ives
of
acl
ass
cons
istin
g of
"al
l Neg
ro s
choo
lag
e ch
ildre
n re
sidi
ngin
the
area
ser
ved
by"
the
Indi
anap
olis
sch
ool b
oard
.T
he in
terv
enin
g pl
aint
iffs
, in
him
, joi
ned
as a
dditi
onal
part
ies
defe
ndan
t the
Gov
erno
r an
d A
ttorn
ey G
ener
alof
Ind
iana
, the
sta
te S
uper
inte
nden
t of
Publ
icin
stru
c-tio
n, th
e st
ate
Boa
rd o
f E
duca
tion
and
19sc
hool
cor
pora
-tio
ns (
incl
udin
g th
e te
n w
ithin
Mar
ion
Cou
nty
whi
chha
d be
en jo
ined
by
the
Uni
ted
Stat
es, p
lus
nine
in th
ead
join
ing
coun
ties
of B
oone
, Ham
ilton
, Han
cock
, Joh
nson
,M
orga
n an
d H
endr
icks
).C
itize
ns o
f In
dian
apol
is f
or Q
ualit
y Sc
hool
s, I
nc.,
ano
t-fo
r-pr
ofit.
cor
pora
tion
was
per
mitt
edto
inte
rven
e as
a de
fend
ant.
See
Uni
ted
Stat
es v
. Boa
rd o
f Sc
hool
Com
-m
issi
oner
s, 4
66 F
.2d
573
(7th
Cir
. 197
2), c
ert.
deni
ed,
410
U.S
. 909
(19
73).
Coa
litio
n fo
r In
tegr
ated
Edu
catio
n,an
uni
ncor
pora
ted
asso
ciat
ion
favo
ring
a m
etro
polit
anpl
an o
f de
segr
egat
ion,
was
gra
nted
leav
eto
file
bri
efs
asam
icus
cur
iae
in b
oth
the
dist
rict
cou
rt a
ndin
this
cou
rt.
r---
---;
..---
Phe
inte
rven
ing
plai
ntif
fs f
iled
an a
men
ded
com
plai
ntin
inte
rven
tion
in tw
o co
unts
. The
fir
stco
unt a
llege
dth
at th
e In
dian
a st
atut
es e
ffec
ting
a go
vern
men
tal r
e-or
gani
zatio
nin
Ind
iana
polis
wer
e nn
cons
titut
iona
las
raci
ally
dis
crim
inat
ory
beca
use
scho
ols
wer
e ex
clud
edfr
omth
eco
nsol
idat
edm
etro
polit
ango
vern
men
t, an
dpr
ayed
for
an
orde
r co
nsol
idat
ing
the
defe
ndan
tsc
hool
syst
ems.
The
sec
ond
coun
t alle
ged
and
soug
ht r
elie
ffr
omra
cial
dis
crim
inat
ion
by th
e st
ate
and
bylo
cal s
choo
l
573
-196
8 th
roug
h 73
-198
4
auth
oriti
es in
the
oper
atio
n of
the
publ
ic s
choo
lsof
Indi
anap
olis
and
the
surr
ound
ing
scho
ol c
orpo
ratio
ns.
The
add
ition
al d
efen
dant
s fi
led
vari
ous
mot
ions
atta
ck-
ing
thei
r jo
inde
r, th
e co
mpl
aint
in in
terv
entio
n an
d th
eco
urt's
juri
sdic
tion
on a
var
iety
of
grou
nds.
All
thes
em
otio
ns w
ere
over
rule
d by
the
dist
rict
cou
rt. S
ever
alof
the
adde
d de
fend
ants
sub
sequ
ently
app
lied
unsu
cces
s-fu
lly to
this
cou
rt f
or w
rits
of
proh
ibiti
on o
r m
anda
mus
to v
acat
e th
e jo
inde
r an
d in
terv
entio
n or
ders
;8 to
com
pel
the
conv
enin
g of
a th
ree-
judg
e di
stri
ct c
ourt
;a a
nd to
com
pel t
he r
ecus
atio
n of
the
dist
rict
judg
e.'
On
Sept
embe
r 28
, 197
2, th
e co
urt f
or th
e fi
rst t
ime
orde
red
the
deV
elop
men
t and
sub
mis
sion
of
com
preh
ensi
vepl
ans
for
the
dese
greg
atio
n of
the
Indi
anap
olis
dis
tric
t.8In
res
pons
e, th
e In
dian
apol
is h
oard
on
Febr
uary
8, 1
973
subm
itted
a p
lan,
den
omin
ated
the
"Sta
biliz
atio
n Pl
an."
The
"St
abili
zatio
n Pl
an"
was
sub
sequ
ently
rej
ecte
d by
the
cour
t on
June
11,
1.9
73.
The
rem
edy
phas
e (I
ndia
napo
lis I
I) w
as tr
ied
befo
reth
e co
urt f
rom
Jun
e 12
to J
uly
6 an
d on
Jul
y 18
, 197
3.O
nffa
ly..2
4197
3, th
e co
urt e
nter
ed it
s de
cisi
on, c
oncl
udin
gth
at (
1) d
eseg
rega
tion
prom
isin
g a
reas
onab
le d
egre
e of
perm
anen
ce c
ould
not
be
acco
mpl
ishe
d w
ithin
the
pres
ent
boun
dari
es o
f th
e In
dian
apol
is s
choo
l dis
tric
t;(2
)th
eSt
ate
of I
ndia
na, i
ts o
ffic
ials
and
age
ncie
s, h
ad b
y va
riou
sac
ts a
nd o
mis
sion
s pr
omot
ed s
egre
gatio
n an
d in
hibi
ted
dese
greg
atio
n w
ithin
the
Indi
anap
olis
dis
tric
t, so
that
5 T
his
cour
tru
led
on th
ree
such
appl
icat
ions
;A
von
Com
mun
itySc
hool
Cor
p. v
. Dill
in, N
o. 7
1-16
95 (
Sept
. 27,
197
1); C
arm
el -
Cla
n Sc
hool
sv.
Dal
in, N
o. 7
1-17
02(O
ct. 1
, 197
1); a
nd S
choo
l Tow
n of
Spe
edw
ayv.
Dill
in, N
o. 7
2-10
63 (
Feb.
2, 1
972)
, cer
t. de
nied
, 407
U.S
. 920
(19
72).
5 M
etro
polit
an S
choo
l Dis
tric
t v. D
illin
, No.
73-
1101
(Apr
. 2,
1973
),ce
rt. d
enie
d, 4
12 U
.S. 9
53 (
1973
).' S
enda
k v.
Dill
in, N
o. 7
3-11
44 (
Feb.
22,
197
3), c
ert.
deni
ed, 4
12 U
.S. 9
49(1
973)
; a m
otio
n fo
r st
ay o
f a
June
11,
197
3 tr
ial d
ate
pend
ing
the
rulin
g on
the
petit
ion
for
a w
rit o
f ce
rtio
rari
was
den
ied
by th
is c
ourt
on M
ay 2
3, 1
973
and
by th
e Su
prem
e C
ourt
at 4
12 U
.S. 9
37 (
1973
).8A
stu
dy o
f th
e sc
hool
sys
tem
, with
inte
rim
rec
omm
enda
tions
for
dese
greg
atio
n, w
as p
repa
red
at th
e re
ques
t of
the
boar
d by
a te
amof
rep
rese
ntat
ives
fro
m th
e O
ffic
e of
Edu
catio
n, D
epar
tmen
t of
Hea
lth,
Edu
catio
n an
d W
elfa
re.
Its
reco
mm
enda
tions
wer
e re
ject
ed b
y th
ebo
ard
on J
une
17, 1
969.
See
Uni
ted
Stat
es v
. Boa
rd o
f Sc
hool
Com
-m
issi
oner
s, 3
32 F
. Sup
p. 6
55, 6
70-7
1 (S
.D. I
nd. 1
971)
. A f
eder
ally
fun
ded
stud
y by
two
"adv
isor
ysp
ecia
lists
"em
ploy
ed b
y th
e sc
hool
boa
rdre
sulte
d in
a s
erie
s of
des
egre
gatio
n re
com
men
datio
ns w
hich
wer
e al
sore
ject
ed s
hort
ly b
efor
e tr
ial i
n 19
71. S
ee 3
32 F
. Sup
p. a
t 672
.
73-1
968
thro
ugh
73-1
984
6.
.
the
stat
e, a
s th
e ag
ency
ulti
mat
ely
char
ged
unde
r In
dian
ala
w w
ith th
e op
erat
ion
of th
e pu
blic
sch
ools
, has
aco
n-tin
uing
aff
irm
ativ
e du
ty to
des
egre
gate
the
Indi
anap
olis
syst
em; (
3) th
e sy
stem
cou
ld b
e. e
ffec
tivel
y de
segr
egat
edei
ther
by
com
bini
ng it
s te
rrito
ry w
ith a
llor
par
t of
the
terr
itory
ser
ved
by th
e 1.
9 su
rrou
ndin
g sc
hool
cor
pora
tions
in a
nd a
djac
ent t
o M
ario
n C
ount
y in
toa
met
ropo
litan
syst
em a
nd th
en r
eass
igni
ng s
tude
nts
with
in th
e ex
pand
edsy
stem
or
by tr
ansf
erri
ng b
lack
stu
dent
s fr
om th
e In
dian
-ap
olis
dis
tric
t to
the
19 o
ther
s, e
ither
on a
(m
e-w
ay o
rex
chan
ge b
asis
; and
(4)
the
stat
e, th
roug
h its
Gen
eral
Ass
embl
y, s
houl
d fi
rst b
e af
ford
ed th
e op
port
unity
tose
lect
its
own
plan
; but
if it
fai
led
to d
oso
, the
cou
rtw
ould
pro
mul
gate
a p
lan.
The
cou
rt o
rder
ed in
teri
mre
lief
in th
e fo
rm o
f st
uden
t ass
ignm
ents
for
the
1973
-74
scho
ol y
ear
suff
icie
nt to
bri
ng th
e nu
mbe
r of
bla
ckst
uden
tsin
eac
h In
dian
apol
is e
lem
enta
ry s
choo
lup
to a
ppro
xi-
mat
ely
.15
perc
ent,
whi
ch w
as a
ccom
plis
hed.
° U
nite
d St
ates
v. B
oard
of
Scho
ol C
omm
issi
rmer
s (I
ndia
napo
lis I
I), 3
68F.
Stip
p. 1
.191
(S.
D. I
nd. 1
973)
.M
eanw
hile
,th
eIn
dian
aG
ener
alA
ssem
bly
was
orga
nize
d in
. Nov
embe
r, 1
973
for
a se
ssio
n to
beg
in in
Janu
ary,
197
4. O
n D
ecem
ber
.1.9
73, t
he c
ourt
issu
ed a
supp
lem
enta
l mem
oran
dum
of
deci
sion
, con
sist
ing
prin
-ci
pally
of
sugg
estio
ns a
nd r
ecom
men
datio
nsfo
r th
e G
en-
eral
Ass
embl
y to
impl
emen
t Ind
iana
polis
II w
ith a
naf
firm
ativ
e pl
an. U
nite
d St
ates
v. B
oard
of
Scho
ol L
iam
-m
issi
oner
s (I
ndia
napo
lis I
ll), 3
G8
F.Sn
pp. 1
223
(S.D
.In
d. 1
973)
.
The
Gen
eral
Ass
embl
y he
ld it
s sc
hedu
led
sess
ion.
The
only
legi
slat
ion
it pa
ssed
rel
atin
g to
this
case
was
Sen
ate
Enr
olle
d A
ct N
o. 1
19, w
hich
was
sig
ned
into
law
by
the
Gov
erno
r of
Ind
iana
on
Febr
uary
20,
197
4.T
he s
tatu
te°
On
Aug
ust 2
0, 1
973,
an
addi
tiona
l hea
ring
was
con
duct
ed, a
fter
whi
chth
e co
urt r
uled
that
a p
lan
subm
itted
by
the
Indi
anap
olis
boa
rd f
aile
dto
com
ply
with
the
inte
rim
rel
ief
orde
r an
d th
at c
ircu
mst
ance
sju
stif
ied
the
appo
intm
ent,
as o
ffic
ers
of th
e co
urt,
of a
two-
man
com
mis
sion
to a
ccom
plis
h th
e ta
sk. O
n A
ugus
t 30.
197
3,a
plan
for
mul
ated
by
the
com
mis
sion
ers
was
app
rove
d. A
pplic
atio
ns b
y th
e In
dian
apol
isbo
ard
for
a st
ay o
f im
plem
enta
tion
of th
e or
ders
ent
ered
on A
ugus
t 20
and
30 w
ere
deni
ed b
y th
is c
ourt
, Mis
c. N
o. 7
3-81
70 (
Sept
.10
, 197
3), a
ndby
a J
ustic
e of
the
Supr
eme
Cou
rt, B
oard
of
Scho
olC
omm
issi
oner
sv.
Uni
ted
Stat
es, N
o. A
-278
(Se
pt. 1
4 an
d Se
pt. 2
1, 1
973)
(Reh
nqui
st,
J.).
The
pla
n ha
s no
w b
een
impl
emen
ted.
The
com
mis
sion
ers
wer
edi
scha
rged
on
Dec
embe
r 10
, 197
3.
773
-196
8 th
roug
h 73
-198
4
prov
ides
for
the
adju
stm
ent o
f tu
ition
am
ong
tran
sfer
oran
d tr
ansf
eree
sch
ools
and
for
the
reim
burs
emen
t of
tran
spor
tatio
n co
sts
by th
e st
ate
and
is r
igid
ly li
mite
din
its
appl
icat
ion:
Thi
s ch
apte
r ap
plie
s so
lely
in a
situ
atio
n w
here
aco
urt o
f th
e U
nite
d St
ates
or
of th
e St
ate
of I
ndia
nain
a s
uit t
o w
hich
the
tran
sfer
or o
r -t
rans
fere
e co
r-po
ratio
n or
cor
pora
tions
are
par
ties
has
foun
d th
efo
llow
ing;
(a)
a tr
ansf
eror
cor
pora
tion
has
viol
ated
the
equa
l pro
tect
ion
clau
se o
f th
e Fo
urte
enth
Am
end-
men
t to
the
Con
stitu
tion
of th
e U
nite
d St
ates
by
prac
ticin
g de
jure
rac
ial s
egre
gatio
n of
the
stud
ents
with
in it
s bo
rder
s; (
b) a
uni
tary
sch
ool s
yste
m w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of
such
Am
endm
ent c
anno
t be
hnpl
e-m
ente
d w
ithin
the
boun
dari
es o
f th
e tr
ansf
eror
cor
-po
ratio
n; a
nd (
c) th
e Fo
urte
enth
Am
endm
ent c
om-
pels
the
Cou
rt to
ord
er a
tran
sfer
or c
orpo
ratio
n to
tran
sfer
its
stud
ents
for
edu
catio
n to
one
or
mor
etr
ansf
eree
cor
pora
tions
to e
ffec
t a p
lan
of d
eseg
rega
-tio
n in
the
tran
sfer
or c
orpo
ratio
n w
hich
is a
ccep
tabl
ew
ithin
the
mea
ning
of
such
Am
endm
ent.
Thi
s ch
apte
rsh
all n
ot a
pply
unt
il al
l app
eals
fro
m s
uch
orde
r,w
heth
er ta
ken
by th
e tr
ansf
eror
cor
pora
tion,
any
tran
sfer
ee c
orpo
ratio
n or
any
par
ty to
the
actio
n,ha
ve b
een
exha
uste
d or
the
time
for
taki
ng s
uch
appe
als
has
expi
red,
exc
ept w
here
all
stay
s of
atr
ansf
er o
rder
pen
ding
app
eal o
r fu
rthe
r co
urt a
ctio
nha
ve b
een
deni
ed.
II
INT
ER
IM R
EL
IEF
WIT
HIN
TH
E I
ND
IAN
APO
LIS
PUB
LIC
SC
HO
OL
.SY
STE
MIn
Ind
iana
polis
II,
the
dist
rict
cou
rt d
irec
ted
the
In-
dian
apol
is p
ublic
sch
ool s
yste
m (
whi
ch th
e co
urt r
efer
red
to a
s IP
S) to
rea
rran
ge th
e en
rollm
ent p
atte
rns
in it
sel
emen
tary
sch
ools
, eff
ectiv
e w
ith th
e 19
73-7
4 sc
hool
yea
r,so
that
eac
h sc
hool
wou
ld h
ave
a m
inim
um b
lack
enr
oll-
men
t "in
the
area
of
15%
." I
PS w
as d
irec
ted
to p
air
or c
lust
er s
choo
ls in
clo
se-p
roxi
mity
and
to r
ealig
n sc
hool
assi
gnm
ent z
ones
in o
rder
to e
xpan
d th
e ne
ighb
orho
odor
com
mun
ity s
choo
l con
cept
and
to r
educ
e th
e ne
cess
ityfo
r bu
sing
. If,
aft
er u
tiliz
ing
thes
e pr
oced
ures
, cer
tain
73-1
968
thro
ugh
73-1
984
8
scho
ols
did
not m
eet t
he r
equi
red
perc
enta
ges
of b
lack
enro
llmen
t, pa
irin
g or
clu
ster
ing
of s
choo
ls in
non
cont
igu-
ous
zone
s w
ould
be
requ
ired
. 368
P. S
tipp.
at 1
209.
The
una
nim
ous
Cou
rt in
Sw
ann
Cha
rlot
te-M
eckl
en-
burg
Boa
rd o
f E
duca
tion,
402
U.S
. 1, 2
7 (1
.971
), d
iscu
ssed
thes
e pr
ecis
e re
med
ies
and
conc
lude
d th
at. e
ven
if p
aire
dor
gro
uped
zon
es f
or tr
ansf
erri
ng b
lack
s ou
t of
and
whi
tes
into
for
mer
ly s
egre
gate
d bl
ack
scho
ols
wer
e "o
nop
posi
te e
nds
of th
e ci
ty,"
nev
erth
eles
s "[
a] s
an
inte
rim
corr
ectiv
e m
easu
re, t
his
cann
ot b
e sa
id to
be
beyo
nd th
ebr
oad
rem
edia
l pow
ers
of a
cou
rt."
In r
espo
nse
to I
ndia
mpo
lia I
I, I
PS s
ubm
itted
a p
lan
whi
ch p
ropo
sed
to c
lose
fou
r pr
edom
inan
tly b
lack
sch
ools
and
to d
istr
ibut
e th
e di
spla
ced
stud
ents
to w
hite
sch
ools
with
exc
ess
unus
ed c
apac
ity. A
fter
an
evid
entia
ry h
eari
ngon
Aug
ust 2
0, 1
973
on th
e IP
S pl
an, t
he d
istr
ict c
ourt
foun
d on
Aug
ust 2
7 th
at it
(1)
(lid
not
rea
djus
t the
perc
enta
ge o
f m
inor
ity s
tude
nts
in th
e el
emen
tary
sch
ools
to a
ppro
xiin
atel
y .1
5 pe
rcen
t;(2
) di
d no
t pro
vide
for
.red
ucin
g th
e pe
rcen
tage
of
min
ority
stu
dent
s at
Sho
rt-
ridg
e H
igh
Scho
ol n
or f
or in
crea
sing
the
perc
enta
geof
min
ority
stu
dent
s at
Tho
mas
Car
r H
owe
Hig
h Sc
hool
,as
pre
viou
sly
orde
red;
and
(3)
did
not
pro
vide
for
the
use
of a
ny o
f th
e at
tend
ance
zon
e; p
airi
ng o
r cl
uste
ring
devi
ces
requ
ired
by
the
cour
t. T
he c
ourt
,' co
nclu
din0
.th
at "
the
Boa
rd is
una
ble
or u
nwill
ing
to c
ompl
y w
ithth
e or
ders
of
this
cou
rt,"
app
oint
ed a
two-
man
com
mis
sion
to d
evel
op d
eseg
rega
tion
plan
s, te
mpo
rari
ly a
ssig
ned
the
IPS
plan
ning
sta
ff to
ass
ist t
he c
omm
issi
oner
s, a
ndre
-qu
ired
that
app
licat
ion
be m
ade
for
avai
labl
e fe
dera
lfu
nds
to a
ssis
t in
dese
greg
atio
n"T
he B
oard
. of
Scho
ol C
omm
issi
oner
s of
IPS
in th
epr
esen
t app
eal a
ttack
s th
e di
stri
ct c
ourt
's o
rder
inso
far
as it
(1)
hel
d th
e bo
ard
in d
efau
lt; (
2) a
ppoi
nted
the
two-
man
com
mis
sion
to p
repa
re p
lans
of
dese
greg
atio
n;(3
) as
sign
ed th
e pr
ofes
sion
al p
lann
ing
staf
f of
IPS
toth
e te
mpo
rary
ser
vice
of
the
com
mis
sion
; and
(4)
ord
ered
IPS
to a
pply
for
all
avai
labl
e fe
dera
l fun
ds.
to I
n an
ord
er e
nter
ed o
n A
ugus
t 27,
1973
, and
exp
ande
d by
an
orde
r de
nyin
g st
ay e
nter
ed D
ecem
ber
18, 1
973,
the
cour
t ord
ered
the
Indi
anap
olis
boa
rd to
app
ly "
for
Fede
ral f
unds
in a
ll of
the
vari
ous
cate
gori
esav
aila
ble
tosc
hool
syst
ems
oper
atin
gun
der
orde
rsof
dese
greg
atio
n."
973
-196
8 th
roug
h 73
-198
4
IPS
alle
ges
that
the
com
mis
sion
's p
lan
for
inte
rim
relie
f, w
hich
rea
ssig
ned
som
e 9,
200
stud
ents
as
oppo
sed
to th
e IP
S pl
an r
eass
igni
ng a
ppro
xim
atel
y 4,
500
stud
ents
,"i
n la
rge
part
was
cop
ied
from
the
earl
ier
[IPS
] pl
an."
IPS
Bri
ef, p
. 27.
We
fail
to p
erce
ive
how
des
egre
gatio
n an
d di
sman
tle-
men
t of
the
IPS
dual
sch
ool s
yste
m w
ould
be
adva
nced
by d
isca
rdin
g th
e co
urt's
inte
rim
pla
n, w
hich
has
bee
nin
eff
ect f
or a
n en
tire
scho
ol y
ear,
and
by
subs
titut
ing
a si
mila
r pl
an th
at g
oes
only
hal
f as
far
as
the
adop
ted
plan
in a
chie
ving
des
egre
gatio
n."T
he m
easu
re o
f an
y de
segr
egat
ion
plan
is it
s.ef
fect
ive-
ness
." D
avis
v. B
oard
of
Scho
ol C
omm
issi
oner
s, 4
02 -
U.S
.33
, 37
(1.9
71.)
. "[A
] sc
hool
aut
hori
ty's
rem
edia
l pla
n or
adi
stri
ct c
ourt
's r
emed
ial d
ecre
e is
to b
e ju
dged
by
itsef
fect
iven
ess.
" Sw
ann
v. C
harl
otte
-Mec
klen
burg
Boa
rd o
fE
duca
tion,
402
U.S
. 1.,
25 (
1971
). "
The
obl
igat
ion
of th
edi
stri
ct c
ourt
s, a
s it
alw
ays
has
been
, is
to a
sses
s th
eef
fect
iven
ess
of a
pro
pose
d pl
an in
ach
ievi
ng d
eseg
rega
-tio
n."
Gre
en, v
. Cou
nty
Scho
ol B
oard
, 391
. U.S
. 430
, 439
(196
8).
Her
e th
e co
urt's
inte
rim
.pla
n, a
lthou
gh c
once
dedl
y on
lya
tem
pora
ry m
easu
re, w
as a
t lea
st tw
ice
as e
ffec
tive
as th
e re
ject
ed I
PS p
lan.
The
per
cent
age
of n
onw
hite
enr
ollm
ent i
n IP
S gr
ewfr
om 1
8.9
perc
ent i
n 1.
950
to 2
6 pe
rcen
t in
1.96
0 an
d to
35.9
per
cent
in 1
970.
At t
he ti
me
of tr
ial,
the
perc
enta
geof
-litt
ie-k
en-r
Zlim
eni w
as 4
1..1
per
cent
. The
IPS
inte
rim
plan
aff
ecte
d 30
611
1iea
-fiii
rbiii
iiiii6
7-10
0 el
emen
tary
schd
ols
and
brou
ght n
onw
hite
enr
ollm
ent t
oap
prox
i-m
atel
y 15
per
cent
in e
ach
scho
ol. T
he c
omm
issi
on (
cour
t-ad
opte
d) in
teri
m p
lan
affe
cted
sig
nifi
cant
ly 6
1. e
lem
enta
rysc
hool
s an
d te
nded
to b
ring
bot
h pr
edom
inan
tly w
hite
and
blac
k sc
hool
s cl
oser
to 4
1 pe
rcen
t bla
ck e
nrol
lmen
tpe
r sc
hool
.T
he 1
972
enro
llmen
t, th
e IP
S-pl
anne
d en
rollm
ent f
or19
73 a
nd th
e co
mm
issi
on-p
lann
ed e
nrol
lmen
t for
197
3co
mpa
re a
s fo
llow
s (N
.C. r
efer
s to
"no
cha
nge"
and
indi
cate
s a
disc
ontin
ued
scho
ol):
73-1
968
thro
ugh
73-1
984
Perc
enta
geN
on-W
hite
Enr
ollm
ent
10
Perc
enta
geN
on-W
hite
Enr
ollm
ent
Scho
ol19
72IP
SC
omm
.Sc
hool
1972
IPS
Com
m.
198
.6N
.C.
N.C
.34
0.6
14.9
19.6
223
.7N
.C.
21.5
350.
0N
.C.
19.2
30.
714
.527
.5.3
610
0.0
N.C
.4
99.5
39.8
3799
.0N
.C.
34.9
547
.7N
.C.
N.C
.38
94.2
N.C
.35
.06
394.
215
.120
,1.
738
.8N
.C.
N.C
.40
S1.
7N
.C.
15.2
41.
99.6
N.C
.N
.C.
932
.1N
.C.
4210
0.0
N.C
.N
.C.
10-
-43
99.8
N.C
.N.C.
1140
.7N
.C.
N.C
.44
99.6
N.C
.N
.C.
1230
.7N
.C.
20.8
4598
.4N
.C.
N.C
.13
--
468.
91.
5.0
24.7
146.
91.
5.2
15.1
470.
01.
5.0
24.8
150.
6N
.C.
27.5
4810
0.0
N.C
.N
.C.
1611
.816
.149
5.4
1.5.
024
.717
500.
0N
.C.
3.1.
018
0.7
N.C
.19
.251
.88
.2N
.C.
39.9
193.
815
.020
.452
77.2
N.C
.31
.020
11.8
15.0
20.1
5344
.9N
.C.
N.C
.21
9.9
15.0
20.2
540.
0N
.C.
22.0
299.
115
.0.
15.0
5514
.7N
.C.
N.C
.23
.56
1.00
.0N
.C.
N.C
.24
575.
015
.023
.1.
25
580.
61.
5.0
23.2
2693
.0N
.C.
38.0
5918
.7N
.C.
N.C
.27
86.5
N.C
.N
.C.
6010
0.0
N.C
.N
.C.
28
3.0
15.0
20.4
611.
915
.01.
9.9
2910
0.0
-62
1.6
N.C
.15
.330
0.7
15.0
30.8
6399
.7N
.C.
N.C
.31
0.0
N.C
.19
.164
99.4
N.C
.37
.932
94.1
-65
4.2
N.C
.19
.733
7.7
15.1
27.4
6695
,1N
.C.
1173
-196
8 th
roug
h 73
-198
4
Perc
enta
gePe
rcen
tage
Non
-Whi
teE
nrol
lmen
tN
on-W
hite
Enr
ollm
ent
Scho
ol19
72IP
SC
omm
. Sch
ool
1972
IPS
Com
m.
6736
.6N
.C.
31..6
911.
8.7
N.C
.N
.C.
680.
3N
.C.
18.0
2 92
4.0
N.C
.23
.18
6999
.2N
.C.
38.0
-93
1.0
N.C
.25
.770
41..0
N.C
.34
.794
0.6
15.0
25.7
71.
96.7
N.C
.N
.C.
951.
7N
.C.
92.4
7920
.1.
N.C
.N
.C.
9(i
0.8.
15.1
.16
.473
81.9
N.C
.84
.72
9725
.4N
.C.
N.C
.74
23.2
N: C
.N
.C.
980.
21.
4.5
19.8
7584
6N
.C.
N.C
.99
39.7
N.C
.N
.C.
7699
.7N
.C.
N.C
. 100
4.4
15,1
.15
.1.
771.
2N
.C.
23.0
101.
36.2
N.C
.N
.C.
780.
015
.022
.11.
021.
215
.019
.979
0.4
15.0
20.0
103
3,3
N.C
.19
.880
13.0
N.C
.N
.C. 1
0445
.8N
.C.
22.4
81.
2.5
N.C
.20
.0 1
050.
415
.019
.882
0.0
N.C
.20
.210
624
.0N
.C.
N.C
.83
63.1
N.C
.N
.C. 1
076.
1.1.
5.1.
21.5
84(i
.815
.015
.210
81.
8N
.C.
17.7
8512
.7N
.C.
N.C
. 109
0.9
N.C
.1.
9.8
S653
.2N
.C.
N.C
. 110
99.2
N.C
.N
.C.
8710
0.0
N.C
.29
.911
1.37
.3N
.C.
34.3
SS0.
5N
.C.
15.8
112
68.2
N.C
.38
.089
3.7
N.C
..
1.8.
89 1
136.
51.
5.0
25.7
908.
015
.115
.011
452
.5N
.C.
34.0
The
dis
tric
t cou
rt p
rope
rly
reje
cted
the
IPS
plan
,w
hich
, tw
o ye
ars
afte
r . t
he f
indi
ng o
f de
jure
seg
rega
tion
by I
PS, w
ent a
rel
ativ
ely
shor
t dis
tanc
e to
war
d de
segr
e-ga
tion.
"T
he b
urde
n on
a s
choo
l boa
rd to
day
is to
com
efo
rwar
d w
ith a
pla
n th
at p
rom
ises
rea
listic
ally
to w
ork,
and
prom
ises
rea
listic
ally
to w
ork
izow
." G
reen
v. C
ount
ySc
hool
. Boa
rd, s
upra
at 4
39.
73-1
968
thro
ugh
73-1
984
14 III
RA
CIA
L B
AL
AN
CE
WIT
HIN
TH
EM
ET
RO
POL
ITA
N I
ND
IA
NA
POL
IS A
RE
AE
ven
the
Boa
rd o
f Sc
hool
Com
mis
sion
ers
ofIP
S co
n-ce
des
that
"it
appe
ars
clea
r fr
om th
e ea
ses
here
tofo
rede
cide
d by
the
Supr
eme
Cou
rt o
f th
e U
nite
d St
ates
that
the
..
.ob
ligat
ion
impo
sed
by th
e C
onst
itutio
n of
the
Uni
ted
Stat
es u
pon
TPS
is th
e du
ty to
dis
man
tleth
edu
al s
choo
l sys
tem
whi
ch w
as f
ound
to e
xist
with
in it
spr
esen
t bou
ndar
ies.
" B
rief
, pp.
1.2
-1.3
.T
he d
istr
ict c
ourt
's o
ppos
ition
to a
fin
al d
eseg
rega
tion
plan
with
in I
PS w
as o
n th
e ba
sis
that
"in
the
long
haul
,it
won
't w
ork.
" 33
2 F.
Sup
p. a
t 678
. The
cou
rt's
theo
ryw
as r
esta
ted
in I
ndia
napo
lis I
I (3
68F.
Sup
p. a
t 1.1
.97)
:
fTlh
e C
ourt
in it
s or
igin
al o
pini
on e
xpre
ssed
som
edo
ubts
as
to w
heth
er o
r no
t a s
tabl
e de
segr
egat
ion
plan
cou
ld b
e es
tabl
ishe
d w
ithin
the
conf
ines
of
IPS,
base
d up
on th
e ev
iden
ce a
dduc
ed a
t tha
t tri
al, w
hich
was
all
to th
e ef
fect
that
whe
n th
e pe
rcen
tage
of
Neg
ro p
upils
in a
giv
en s
choo
l app
roac
hes
40%
, mor
eor
less
,th
e ex
odus
of
whi
te p
upils
fro
m s
uch
asc
hool
bec
omes
acc
eler
ated
and
irre
vers
ible
, res
ultin
gin
res
egre
gatio
n. H
owev
er, a
dditi
onal
evi
denc
e on
the
issu
e w
as a
dduc
ed a
t the
rec
ent t
rial
, and
the
Cou
rtba
ses
itsfi
ndin
gsex
clus
ivel
yup
onsu
chla
tter
yev
iden
ce.
Hav
ing
cons
ider
ed s
uch
evid
ence
, the
Cou
rt f
inds
it to
be
a fa
ct th
at w
hen
the
perc
enta
ge o
f N
egro
pupi
ls in
a g
iven
sch
ool a
ppro
ache
s 25
% to
30%
,m
ore
or le
ss, i
n th
e ar
ea s
erve
dby
IPS
, the
whi
teex
odus
fro
m s
uch
a sc
hool
dis
tric
t bec
omes
acc
eler
ated
and
cont
inue
s..
.A
ll w
itnes
ses
agre
ed th
at o
nce
a sc
hool
bec
omes
iden
tifia
bly
blac
k, it
nev
er r
ever
ses
to w
hite
, in
the
abse
nce
of r
edis
tric
ting.
The
refo
re,
prog
ress
ions
fro
m w
hite
to b
lack
are
irre
vers
ible
once
the
criti
cal p
erce
ntag
eha
s be
en r
each
ed in
the
abse
nce
of in
terv
entio
n th
roug
h re
dist
rict
ing.
:Bel
owth
e cr
itica
l per
cent
age,
how
ever
, sch
ools
tend
to r
e-m
ain
stab
le. .
..
1573
-196
8 th
roug
h 73
-198
4
The
dis
tric
t cou
rt th
en c
oncl
uded
that
the
mos
teff
ectiv
em
etho
d of
rea
listic
ally
acc
ompl
ishi
ng d
eseg
rega
tion
ofIP
S w
ould
be
eith
er b
y co
mbi
ning
IPS
terr
itory
. with
that
of
all o
r pa
rt o
f th
e te
rrito
ry s
erve
d by
the
ten
Mar
ion
Cou
nty
(Uni
-Gov
) sc
hool
dis
tric
ts a
ndpo
ssib
lyal
so w
ith th
at o
f so
me
or a
ll of
the
nine
sch
ool d
istr
icts
in c
ount
ies
adja
cent
to M
ario
n C
ount
y, a
nd th
en r
e-as
sign
ing
stud
ents
with
in th
e m
etro
polit
an a
rea
thus
crea
ted,
or
by tr
ansf
erri
ng b
lack
stu
dent
s fr
om I
PS to
the
othe
r di
stri
cts,
eith
er o
n a
one-
way
or
an e
xcha
nge
basi
s.H
avin
g fo
und
IPS
guilt
y of
de
jure
seg
rega
tion,
the
cour
t the
n pr
ocee
ded
to c
onsi
der
upon
evi
dent
iary
hea
ring
the
situ
atio
n hi
the
rem
aini
ng s
choo
l dis
tric
ts. H
e co
n-cl
uded
(36
8 F.
Sup
p. a
t 120
3):
The
re w
as n
o ev
iden
ce th
at a
ny o
f th
e ad
ded
defe
ndan
t sch
ool c
orpo
ratio
ns h
ave
com
mitt
ed a
cts
of d
e ju
re s
egre
gatio
n di
rect
ed a
gain
st N
egro
stu
-de
nts
livin
g w
ithin
thei
r re
spec
tive
bord
ers.
In
fact
,th
e ev
iden
ce s
how
s th
at, w
ith a
few
exc
eptio
ns, n
one
ofth
e ad
ded
defe
ndan
ts h
ave
had
the
oppo
rtun
ity to
com
mit
such
ove
rt a
cts
beca
use
the
Neg
ro p
opul
atio
nre
sidi
ng w
ithin
the
bord
ers
of s
uch
defe
ndan
ts r
ange
s/fr
om s
light
to n
one.
..
.
In M
illik
en v
. Bra
dley
,U
.S.
(Jul
y 25
, 197
4),
whe
re th
e lo
wer
cou
rts
had
foun
d a
de ju
re s
egre
gate
dpu
blic
sch
ool s
yste
m in
ope
ratio
n in
Det
roit
(Bra
dley
v. M
illik
en, 3
38 F
. Sup
p. 5
82, 5
94 (
E.D
. Mic
h.19
71),
afd,
484
F.2
d 21
5, 2
58 (
6th
Cir
. 197
3)),
but
with
"no
shoW
ing
of s
igni
fica
nt V
iola
tion
by th
e 53
out
lyin
g sc
hool
dist
rict
s an
d no
evi
denc
e of
any
inte
rdis
tric
t vio
latio
nor
eff
ect,"
the
maj
ority
of
the
Supr
eme
Cou
rt s
aid:
To
appr
ove
the
rem
edy
orde
red
by th
e co
urt w
ould
impo
se o
n th
e ou
tlyin
g di
stri
cts,
not
to h
ave
com
-m
itted
any
con
stitu
tiona
l vio
latio
n, a
who
lly im
per-
mis
sibl
e re
med
y. .
..
Dis
para
te tr
eatm
ent o
f W
hite
and
Neg
ro s
tude
nts
occu
rred
with
in th
e D
etro
it sc
hool
sys
tem
, and
not
else
whe
re, a
nd o
n th
e. r
ecor
d th
e re
med
y m
ust b
elim
ited
to th
at s
yste
m.
73-1
968
thro
ugh
73-1
984
18
In I
ndia
napo
lis I
, whi
ch h
ad b
een
deci
ded
16 m
onth
spr
ior
to th
e. in
terv
iew
, the
judg
e ha
d fo
und
afte
r he
arin
gth
at "
Mow
-ren
t hou
sing
pro
ject
s w
ithin
the
Scho
ol C
ityha
ve s
igni
fica
ntly
aff
ecte
d th
e ra
cial
com
posi
tion
of th
esc
hool
s."
332
F. S
upp.
at 6
73."
"The
rem
arks
wer
e de
rive
d fr
om p
roce
edin
gs h
ad b
e-fo
re th
e co
urt,
and
not o
n at
titud
es o
r co
ncep
tions
that
wer
e fo
rmed
out
side
the
cour
troo
m, s
o as
to c
onst
itute
disq
ualif
ying
per
sona
l bia
sor
.pre
judi
ce."
Man
ger.
v.
Uni
ted
Stat
es, 3
98 F
.2d
91, 1
01 (
8th
Cir
. 196
8), c
ert.
deni
ed, 3
93 U
.S. 1
119
(196
9).
Furt
herm
ore,
com
men
ts.
rulin
gsor
ques
tions
pro-
poun
ded
to w
itnes
ses
by d
ie ju
dge
duri
ng th
e su
bseq
uent
tria
l in
whi
ch th
e st
ate
offi
cial
s pa
rtic
ipat
ed a
s de
fen-
dant
s, a
nd v
iew
s ex
pres
sed
conc
erni
ng th
e ap
plic
able
law
dur
ing
that
tria
l, do
not
est
ablis
h pe
rson
al b
ias
orpr
ejud
ice.
Nor
did
the
stat
e of
fici
als
file
any
sub
sequ
ent
affi
davi
t cov
erin
g tr
ial e
vent
s.13
We
have
exa
min
ed th
ere
cord
and
hav
e fo
und
that
the
judg
e w
as n
eces
sari
ly f
irm
at ti
mes
, par
ticul
arly
whe
n it
appe
ared
0at
tbp,
def
enda
nts
wer
e fo
ot-d
ragg
ing
and
stal
ling,
but
nev
er,e
xhib
itpe
rson
al b
ias
or p
reju
dice
, nor
go
beyo
nd f
ile b
timid
S- o
fan
ordi
nary
and
rea
sona
ble
trie
r of
fac
t atte
mpt
ing
to s
olve
a di
ffic
ult a
nd le
ngth
y sc
hool
des
egre
gatio
n ca
se.
Add
ing
Part
ies-
Def
enda
nt W
hile
App
eal P
endi
ng. T
hest
ate
offi
cial
s ar
gue
that
IPS
app
eale
d fr
om I
ndia
napo
lis I
\on
Sep
tem
ber
10, 1
971
and
that
eve
ryth
ing
that
spir
ed in
the
dist
rict
cou
rt b
etw
een
that
dat
e an
d Fe
b-na
ry 1
, 197
3, w
hen
this
cou
rt a
ffir
med
Ind
iana
polis
I (
474'
F.2d
81)
, is
null
and
void
. The
y po
int p
artic
ular
lyto
the
addi
tion
of th
e st
ate
offi
cial
s as
par
ties -
.def
enda
nt o
n Se
p-te
mbe
r 14
, 197
1, th
e fi
ling
of th
e am
ende
d co
mpl
aint
and
com
plai
nt in
inte
rven
tion
and
the
tria
l of
Indi
anap
olis
II.
We
disp
osed
of
this
con
tent
ion
inan
ear
lier
appe
alin
this
cas
e, U
nite
d St
ates
v. B
oard
of
Scho
olC
omm
is-
12 S
ee a
lso
332
F. S
upp.
at 6
76: "
[R]e
segr
egat
ion
rapi
dly
occu
rs, a
ndth
e en
tire
cent
ral c
ore
of th
e in
volv
ed c
ity d
evel
ops
into
a vi
rtua
llyal
l-N
egro
city
with
in a
city
whe
n, a
s in
Ind
iana
polis
, the
Neg
ro 'r
esi-
dent
ial a
rea
is la
rgel
y co
nfin
ed to
a p
ortio
n of
the
cent
ral
city
in th
efi
rst p
lace
."13
28
U.S
.C. §
144
pro
vide
s th
at "
[a]
part
y m
ay f
ile o
nly
one
such
affi
davi
t in
any
case
," b
ut it
als
o pr
ovid
es th
at th
e af
fida
vit "
shal
lst
ate
the
fact
s an
d th
e re
ason
s fo
r th
e be
lief
that
bia
sor
pre
judi
ce e
xist
s."
1973
-196
8 th
roug
h 73
-198
4
sion
ers,
No.
72-
1948
(A
ug. 1
0, 1
973)
, whe
re w
e sa
id (
p.3)
:14
..
Def
enda
nts
also
con
tend
that
all
juri
sdic
tion
pass
ed f
rom
the
dist
rict
cou
rt w
hen
the
notic
e to
ap-
peal
was
file
d.C
erta
inly
the
dist
rict
cou
rt h
ad th
e po
wer
to e
n-fo
rce
its e
arlie
r or
der
whi
le th
e ap
peal
was
pen
ding
.T
he F
ifth
Cir
cuit
addr
esse
d de
fend
ants
'ju
risd
ic-
tiona
l con
tent
ion
in P
laqu
emin
es P
aris
h C
omm
issi
on.
Cou
ncil
v. U
nite
d St
ates
, 416
F.2
d 95
2, 9
54 (
5th
Cir
.19
69)
: "The
dis
tric
t cou
rt d
id n
ot lo
se ju
risd
ictio
nof
the
part
ies
mer
ely
beca
use
an a
ppea
l was
pend
ing
from
the
dese
greg
atio
n or
der.
App
el-
lant
s ci
te n
o sc
hool
cas
e au
thor
ity to
sup
port
thei
r vi
ew th
at th
e di
stri
ct c
ourt
lack
s ju
risd
ic-
tion
to p
rom
ulga
te a
dditi
onal
ord
ers
to m
aint
ain
the
stat
us q
uo a
nd to
insu
re th
e en
forc
emen
t of
its p
revi
ous
orde
rs. G
ener
ally
, a d
istr
ict c
ourt
reta
ins
juri
sdic
tion
to e
nfor
ce it
s pr
ior
orde
rs,
and
this
is p
artic
ular
ly tr
ue w
ith r
espe
ct to
de-
segr
egat
ion
case
s. U
nite
d St
ates
v. S
wif
t & C
o.,
28G
-U
.S. 1
06i,
52 S
.Ct.
460,
76
L.E
d. 9
99 (
1932
);ljr
own
v. &
Said
of
Edu
catio
n, 3
49 U
.S. 2
94,
75S.
Ct.
753,
99
L.E
d. 1
083
(195
5) (
Bro
wn
II);
Gre
en v
. Sch
ool B
oard
of
New
Ken
t Cou
nty,
391
U.S
. 430
, 88
S.C
t. 16
89, 2
0 L
.Ed.
2d 7
16 (
1968
)."
Ele
vent
h A
men
dmen
t. T
he s
tate
off
icia
ls a
ndon
e of
the
Mar
ion
Cou
nty
defe
ndan
ts P
erry
Tow
nshi
p,co
nten
ded
that
the
Ele
vent
h A
men
dmen
t15
bars
pro
secu
tion
of a
n ac
-tio
n "i
n es
senc
e ag
ains
t the
Sta
te o
f In
dian
a"w
ithou
t3,
the
Stat
e s
cons
ent o
r w
aive
r of
con
sent
."I
1114
The
pri
or a
ppea
l was
dis
pase
d of
.by
an u
npub
lishe
d, o
rder
, whi
chun
der
our
Cir
cuit
Rul
e 28
"sh
all n
ot h
e ci
ted
as p
rece
dent
.,,.
exce
ptto
sup
port
a c
laim
of
..
. law
of
the
case
." T
hat i
s th
e re
ason
for
citi
ngit
here
."T
he E
leve
nth
Am
endm
ent t
o th
e C
onst
itutio
nof
the
Uni
ted
Stat
espr
ovid
es: "
The
judi
cial
pow
er o
f th
e U
nite
d St
ates
sha
llno
t be
con-
stru
ed to
ext
end
to a
ny s
uit i
n la
w o
r eq
uity
, com
rnen
ce4
or p
rose
cute
dag
ains
t one
of
the
Uni
ted
Stat
es b
y ci
tizen
s of
ano
ther
Sta
te,
or b
yci
tizen
s of
any
for
eign
Sta
te."
The
Ele
vent
h A
men
dmen
t app
lies
to s
uits
agai
nst a
sta
te b
y ci
tizen
s of
that
sta
te. F
itts
v. M
cGhe
e, 1
72 U
.S.
516
(189
9).
le T
he a
men
dmen
t bar
s su
its n
ot o
nly
agai
nst t
he s
tate
whe
n it
isna
med
a p
arty
but
whe
n it
is th
e pa
rty
in f
act.
Ede
lman
v. J
orda
n,.
..
.U
.S. .
..., 4
2 U
.S.L
.W. 4
419
(Mar
. 15,
197
4).
73-1
968
thro
ugh
73-1
984
22
plan
s of
des
egre
gatio
n. .
.."
484
F.2
d 21
5, 2
52, r
ever
sed
on o
ther
gro
unds
, Mill
iken
v.
Bra
dley
,U
.S(J
uly.
25,
197
4).
Thi
s is
pre
cise
ly w
hat t
he d
istr
ict c
ourt
(lid
inth
e In
-di
anap
olis
cas
e. W
e ho
ld th
at it
s ru
lings
in th
is r
egar
dw
ere
prop
er.
Thr
ee J
udge
Cou
rt.
The
sch
ool b
oard
s ou
tsid
e IP
Sco
nten
d th
at th
e di
stri
ct c
ourt
vio
late
.d I
ndia
na s
tatu
tes
by p
urpo
rtin
g to
ord
er th
e tr
ansf
er o
f sc
hool
child
ren
from
TPS
to o
utsi
de s
choo
l dis
tric
ts w
ithou
t see
king
to,
conv
ene
a th
ree-
judg
e co
urt u
nder
28 U
.S.C
. § 2
281.
The
dis
tric
t jud
ge f
ound
that
the
Indi
ana
stat
utes
alle
ged
to h
ave
been
vio
late
d ap
plie
d on
ly to
sch
ool c
or-
pora
tions
with
in M
ario
n C
ount
y, I
ndia
na, a
nd h
e th
ere-
fore
den
ied
the
mot
ion
for
a th
ree-
judg
e co
urt o
n th
egr
ound
that
the
stat
utes
wer
e no
t or
the
requ
isite
gen
-er
al, s
tate
-wid
e ap
plic
atio
n. G
riff
in. v
. Cou
nty
Scho
ol B
oard
,37
7 U
.S. 2
18, 2
27-2
8 (1
964)
.T
his
cour
t -de
nied
a`p
etiti
on b
y th
e sc
hool
boa
rds
for
a w
rit o
f m
anda
mus
or
proh
ibiti
on a
ndad
opte
d th
e di
s-tr
ict c
ourt
's m
emor
andu
m o
f di
spos
ition
of
the
thre
e-ju
dge
ques
tion
in M
etro
polit
an S
choo
l Dis
tric
t v. D
alin
, No.
73-
1..1
01(A
pr. 2
, 197
3), a
nd c
ertio
rari
was
den
ied
at 4
12U
.S. 9
53 (
1973
).In
the
Det
roit
scho
ol c
ase,
the
Sixt
h C
ircu
it de
nied
ap-
plic
atio
ns f
or w
rits
of
man
dam
us o
r pr
ohib
ition
aga
inst
the
dist
rict
judg
e fo
r "f
ailin
g to
con
vene
thre
e-ju
dge
cour
ts.
..
in s
pite
of
the
fact
that
..
.[c
erta
in s
choo
l]D
istr
icts
wer
e no
t par
ties
to th
e de
segr
egat
ion
proc
eedi
ngs
and
had
not b
een
foun
d to
hav
e co
mm
itted
any
act
of
de ju
re s
egre
gatio
n."
Bra
dley
v. M
illik
&n,
484
F.2
d 21
5,21
7-18
(6t
h C
ir. 1
973)
. The
Sup
rem
e C
ourt
den
ied
cert
i-or
ari i
n th
e D
etro
it m
anda
mus
and
pro
hibi
tion
case
s at
410
U.!
. 954
(19
73).
Exc
lusi
on o
f So
ciol
ogic
al E
vide
nce.
The
out
side
sch
ool
hoar
ds a
ppea
led
the
cour
t's e
xclu
sion
of
.the
test
imon
yof
two
expe
rt s
ocio
logi
cal w
itnes
ses.
Dr.
Dav
id J
. Arm
orw
ould
hav
e te
stif
ied
that
"m
anda
tory
bus
ing
prog
ram
sco
uld
resu
ltin
adve
rse
soci
olog
ical
and
psy
chol
ogic
alef
fect
s on
the
child
ren
invo
lved
.,
that
pre
judi
ce, r
acia
lid
entit
y, s
olid
arity
and
des
ire
for
sepa
ratis
m w
as u
sual
ly
2373
-196
8 th
roug
h 73
-198
4
enha
nced
rat
her
than
dim
inis
hed,
and
that
ove
r th
e sh
ort
run
busi
ng f
or p
urpo
ses
of in
tegr
atio
n di
d no
t lea
d to
sig
-in
fica
nt g
ainS
in s
tude
nt a
chie
vem
ent o
r in
terr
acia
l har
-m
ony.
" D
r. E
rnes
t van
den
Haa
g w
ould
hav
e te
stif
ied:
"(a)
Con
tact
bet
wee
n th
e ra
ces
does
not
red
uce
prej
udic
e;an
d (b
) In
tegr
atio
n (a
s di
stin
guis
hed
from
des
egre
gatio
n)m
ay h
eigh
ten
raci
al id
entit
y an
d re
duce
s th
e op
port
unity
for
actu
al c
onta
ct b
etw
een
the
ra.c
es.'1
8In
Bro
wn
1, B
row
n v.
Boa
rd o
f E
duca
tion,
347
U.S
. 483
(195
4), M
r. C
hief
Jus
tice
War
ren
buttr
esse
d hi
s co
nclu
sion
that
the
"sep
arat
e bu
t equ
al"
doct
rine
of
Ples
sy v
. Fer
gu-
son,
163
U.S
. 537
(18
96),
dep
rive
d m
inor
ity c
hild
ren
ofeq
ual e
duca
tiona
l opp
ortu
nitie
s, w
ith a
foo
tnot
e ci
ting
som
e so
ciol
ogic
al a
nd p
sych
olog
ical
aut
hori
ty to
that
ef-
fect
. 347
U.S
. at 4
94 n
. 11.
Thi
s re
lianc
e on
sup
port
ive
soci
olog
ical
mat
eria
l by
the
Supr
eme
Cou
rt h
as le
d to
anu
mbe
r of
abo
rtiv
e at
tem
pts
to o
verr
ule
Bro
wn
and
rein
-st
ate
Ples
sy th
roug
h re
lianc
e on
soc
iolo
gica
l and
psy
cho-
logi
cal m
ater
ial w
hich
pur
port
s to
sho
w th
at m
inor
itych
ildre
n th
rive
whe
n se
greg
ated
. Nee
dles
s to
say
, the
sat
tem
pts
have
all
faile
d.In
Map
p v.
Boa
rd o
f E
duca
tion,
the
dist
rict
cou
rtap
-pr
oved
and
impl
emen
ted
a pl
an o
f de
segr
egat
ion
for
the
Cha
ttano
oga,
Ten
ness
ee p
ublic
sch
ools
at 3
29 F
. Sup
p.13
74 (
E.D
. Ten
n. 1
971)
, and
341
F. S
upp.
193
(19
72).
The
maj
ority
opi
nion
of
a th
ree-
judg
e pa
nel r
eman
ded
the
case
to th
e di
stri
ct c
ourt
for
fur
ther
con
side
ratio
n,pa
rtic
ular
ly o
f re
cent
soc
iolo
gica
l fin
ding
s, in
eva
luat
ing
the
impa
ct o
f in
duce
d bu
sing
upo
n ed
ucat
iona
l ach
ieve
-m
ent a
nd r
ace
rela
tions
.C
ause
No.
71-
2006
(6t
h C
ir.,
Oct
. 11,
197
2). J
udge
Edw
ards
dis
sent
ed o
n th
e ba
sis
that
any
ree
valu
atio
n of
the
soci
olog
ical
und
erpi
nnin
gs o
fB
row
n w
as im
prop
er a
nd m
isle
adin
g, a
nd th
at c
ount
er-
evid
ence
was
ava
ilabl
e in
any
eve
nt.1
9 D
escr
ibin
g th
em
ajor
ity's
ref
eren
ce to
Arm
or's
art
icle
as
"com
plet
ely
irre
leva
nt to
our
lega
l pro
blem
s,"
he a
ppen
ded
to h
is d
is-
sent
ano
ther
art
icle
cri
ticiz
ing
it. O
n D
ecem
ber
14, 1
972,
17Se
eal
so A
rmor
, "T
he E
vide
nce
on B
usin
g,"
Pun.
INT
ER
ES
T91
(Sum
mer
197
2).
18 S
ee a
lso
van
den
Haa
g, "
Soci
al S
cien
ce T
estim
ony
in th
e D
eseg
rega
-tio
n C
ases
," 6
Vat
. L.
RE
V.
69 (
1960
); v
an d
en H
aag,
"T
he T
ortu
red
Sear
ch f
or th
e C
ause
of
Ineq
ualit
y,"
NA
T.
RE
v., F
eb. 1
6, 1
973,
at 2
00.
19 N
ote,
"B
usin
g as
a J
udic
ial R
emed
y: A
Soc
lo -
Leg
al R
eapp
rais
al,"
6 IN
D. L
. Rev
. 710
, 736
-38
(197
3).
73-1
968
thro
ugh
73-1
984
24
the
pane
l opi
nion
was
with
draw
n an
d th
eca
se h
eard
en b
ane.
On
Apr
il 30
, 197
3, th
e Si
xth
Cir
cuit
deci
ded
eigh
t-to
-tw
o to
aff
irm
the
dist
rict
cou
rt in
Map
pv.
Boa
rdof
Edu
catio
n, 4
77 F
.2d
851
(6th
Cir
.), c
ert.
deni
ed, 4
14U
.S. 1
022
(197
3).
In N
orth
cros
s v.
Boa
rd o
f E
duca
tion,
466
F.2
d 89
0, 8
94(6
th C
ir. 1
972)
, the
cou
rt s
aid:
..
.In
sho
rt, t
he S
choo
l Boa
rd a
rgue
s, b
usin
g fo
r th
epu
rpos
es o
f de
segr
egat
ion
"is
wro
ng."
The
Sup
rem
e C
ourt
has
, of
cour
se,
com
e to
the
oppo
site
con
clus
ion
in a
rec
ent u
nani
mou
s de
cisi
on,
hold
ing
that
"bu
s tr
ansp
orta
tion"
is o
ne "
tool
of
dese
greg
atio
n" w
hich
sch
ool a
utho
ritie
sm
ay b
e re
-qu
ired
to u
se. S
wai
m, s
upra
, 402
U.S
. 1, 3
0, 9
1 S.
Ct.
1267
. Rec
ogni
zing
this
to b
e th
e ho
ldin
g of
Sw
ann,
Def
enda
nts
neve
rthe
less
sug
gest
that
we
com
e to
aco
ntra
ry c
oncl
usio
n on
the
basi
s of
a s
ingl
e pi
ece
ofm
uch
criti
cize
d so
ciol
ogic
al r
esea
rch,
the
conc
lusi
ons
of w
hich
are
, by
its o
wn
term
s, in
appl
icab
le to
the
Sout
hern
sch
ool p
atte
rn.
It w
ould
be
pres
umpt
uous
in th
e ex
trem
e fo
r us
to r
efus
e to
fol
low
a S
upre
me
Cou
rt d
ecis
ion
on th
e ba
sis
of s
uch
mea
ger
evid
ence
.Sw
ann
is c
ontr
ollin
g an
d re
quir
es u
s to
san
ctio
n th
eui
e of
bus
tran
spor
tatio
n as
a to
ol o
f de
segr
egat
ion
whe
n as
her
e, s
uch
busi
ng is
nec
essa
ry to
acc
ompl
ish
the
dism
antli
ng o
f th
e du
al s
yste
m a
nd it
s us
e do
esno
t pos
e in
tole
rabl
e pr
actic
al p
robl
ems.
The
"m
uch
criti
cize
d so
ciol
ogic
al r
esea
rch"
is A
rmor
'sar
ticle
cite
d su
pra
in f
ootn
ote
1720
and
cri
ticiz
ed in
Jud
geE
dwar
ds' d
isse
nt in
the
orig
inal
Map
p de
cisi
on."
20 "
It w
as a
gree
d am
ong
all p
artie
s an
d th
e co
urt b
elow
that
Dr.
Arm
or w
ould
hav
e te
stif
ied
at th
e tr
ial t
o th
e fa
cts
and
conc
lusi
ons
stat
ed in
suc
h ar
ticle
..
.."
Bri
ef f
or C
arm
el-C
lay
Scho
ols,
et a
l. in
the
pres
ent c
ase
at 4
2.21
Arm
or's
art
icle
is a
lso
criti
cize
d in
:E
dito
rial
, "D
ange
rous
Ort
ho-
doxy
," N
.Y. T
imes
, Jul
y 5,
1972
, at 3
8,co
ls. 1
-2; F
arbe
r, "
Law
yers
'G
roup
Fea
rs a
n O
verr
elia
nce
on E
duca
tiona
l Stu
dies
," N
.Y. T
imes
, Jun
e11
, 197
2,at
37,
col
s. 1
-5; H
odgs
on, "
Do
Scho
ols
Mak
e a
Dif
fere
nce,
"A
TL
AN
TIC
, Mar
. 197
3, a
t 40-
41; P
ettig
rew
, Use
em, N
orm
and,
& S
mith
,"B
usin
g: A
Rev
iew
of
'The
Evi
denc
e, "
Pua
. IN
TE
BE
sT, W
inte
r 19
73, a
t88
; Pet
tigre
w, U
seem
, Nor
man
d, &
Sm
ith, "
Pier
ced
Arm
or,"
IN
TE
GR
AT
ED
EM
IG.,
Nov
.-D
ec. 1
972,
at 3
; Rei
nhol
d, "
Stud
y C
ritic
al o
f B
usin
g Sc
ored
,"N
.Y. T
imes
, Jun
e 8,
197
2, a
t 40,
col
s. 1
-3; S
tric
kman
, "T
he T
roub
le w
ithA
rmor
," 6
UR
BA
N R
ay.,
Sept
.-O
ct. 1
972,
at 2
0.
2573
-196
8 th
roug
h 73
-198
4
In S
te 1
1 v.
Sav
anna
h-C
hath
am. .
Cou
nty
Boa
rd, o
f E
duca
-tio
n, 2
20 F
. Sup
p. 6
67, 6
73 (
S.D
. Ga.
196
3), t
he d
istr
ict
cour
t as
earl
y as
196
3 re
lied
upon
a g
reat
vol
ume
of s
ocio
-lo
gica
l and
psy
chol
ogic
al m
ater
ial,
incl
udin
g th
e te
stim
ony
of D
r. v
an d
en H
aag,
in r
efus
ing
to d
ism
antle
a du
alsc
hool
sys
tem
. The
Cou
rt o
f A
ppea
ls f
or th
e Fi
fth
Cir
-cu
it pr
ompt
ly e
nter
ed a
n in
junc
tion
requ
irin
g de
segr
ega-
tion
pend
ing
appe
al o
n th
e m
erits
at 3
18 F
.2d
425
(5th
Cir
. 196
3) a
nd r
ever
sed
the
dist
rict
cou
rt a
t 333
F.2
d 55
(5th
Cir
.), c
ert.
deni
ed, 3
79 U
.S. 9
33 (
1964
).If
this
sor
t of
soci
olog
ical
and
psy
chol
ogic
al m
ater
ial
wer
e fu
lly v
alid
and
if B
row
n I
vita
lly d
epen
ded
upon
it,
even
then
onl
y th
e Su
prem
e C
ourt
itse
lf c
ould
ove
rrul
eB
row
n.
But
, as
we
have
see
n, th
e va
lidity
of
the
mat
eria
l is
ingr
ave
doub
t and
Bro
wn
is n
ot d
epen
dent
upo
n it.
As
Judg
e So
belo
ff s
o ap
tly p
ut it
in B
runs
on v
. Boa
rd o
fT
rust
ees,
429
F.2
d 82
0, 8
24, 8
26 (
4th
Cir
. 197
0) (
Judg
eSo
belo
ff c
oncu
rrin
g an
d re
spon
ding
to a
dis
sent
whi
chre
lied
in p
art u
pon
the
soci
olog
ical
theo
ries
of
Dr.
Tho
mas
F. P
ettig
rew
) :
..
.T
here
hav
e al
way
s be
en th
ose
who
bel
ieve
d th
atse
greg
atio
n of
the
race
s in
the
scho
ols
was
sou
nded
ucat
iona
l pol
icy,
but
sin
ce B
row
n th
eir
reas
onin
gha
s no
t bee
n pe
rmitt
ed to
with
stan
d th
e co
nstit
utio
nal
com
man
d.*
Thi
s id
ea, t
hen,
is n
o m
ore
than
a r
esur
rect
ion
ofth
e ax
iom
of
blac
k in
feri
ority
as
just
ific
atio
n fo
rse
para
tion
of th
e ra
ces,
and
no
less
than
a r
etur
n to
the
spir
it of
Dre
d Sc
ott.
The
inve
ntor
s an
d pr
opo-
nent
s of
this
theo
ry g
ross
ly m
isap
preh
end
the
philo
-so
phic
al b
asis
for
des
egre
gatio
n.It
is n
ot f
ound
edup
on th
e co
ncep
t tha
t whi
te c
hild
ren
are
a pr
ecio
usre
sour
ce w
hich
sho
uld
be f
airl
y ap
port
ione
d.It
isno
t, as
Pet
tigre
w s
ugge
sts,
bec
ause
bla
ck c
hild
ren
will
be
impr
oved
by
asso
ciat
ion
with
thei
r be
tters
.C
erta
inly
it is
hop
ed th
at u
nder
inte
greg
atio
n m
em-
bers
of
each
rac
e w
ill b
enef
it fr
om u
nfet
tere
d co
ntac
tw
ith th
eir
peer
s. B
ut s
choo
l seg
rega
tion
is f
orbi
dden
sim
ply_
bec
ause
_its
per
petu
atio
n is
a li
ving
insu
lt to
_the
bla
ck c
hild
ren
an_d
_im
mea
sura
hly_
tain
ts:th
e ed
uce-
catio
nthe
irec
eige
. Thi
s is
the
prec
ise
less
on o
f
. .73
-196
8 th
roug
h 73
-198
426
Bro
wn.
Wer
e a
cour
t to
adop
t the
Pet
tigre
w r
atio
nale
it w
ould
do
expl
icitl
y w
hat c
ompu
lsor
y se
greg
atio
nla
ws
did
impl
icitl
y.T
he d
istr
ict c
ourt
in I
ndia
napo
lis w
as a
ctin
g w
ell w
ithin
its d
iscr
etio
n in
exc
ludi
ng th
e te
stim
ony
of D
rs. A
rmor
and
van
den
Haa
g si
nce
neith
er th
e di
stri
ct c
ourt
nor
this
cou
rt c
an o
verr
ule
Bro
wn.
Atto
rney
s' F
ees.
The
dis
tric
t cou
rt's
dec
isio
n in
Ind
i-an
apol
is I
I in
clud
ed a
fin
ding
that
"at
torn
eys
for
inte
r-ve
ning
pla
intif
fs a
nd th
eir
clas
s.
.. a
reen
title
d to
rec
over
thei
r re
ason
able
atto
rney
s fe
es a
nd e
xpen
ses,
and
inte
r-ve
ning
pla
intif
fs a
re e
ntitl
ed to
rec
over
thei
r co
sts.
" 36
8F.
Sup
p. a
t 121
0.In
Nor
cros
s v.
Boa
rd o
f E
duca
tion,
412
U.S
. 427
, 428
(197
3), t
he S
upre
me
Cou
rt h
eld
that
und
er s
ectio
n 71
8 of
Titl
e V
II o
f th
e E
mer
genc
y Sc
hool
Aid
Act
, 20
U.S
.C.
§ 16
17, "
the
succ
essf
ul p
lain
tiff
[in
a sc
hool
des
egre
gatio
nca
se]
'sho
uld
ordi
nari
ly r
ecov
er a
n at
torn
ey's
fee
unl
ess
spec
ial c
ircu
mst
ance
s w
ould
ren
der
such
an
awar
d un
just
.' "
Sect
ion
718
did
not b
ecom
e ef
fect
ive
until
Jul
y 1,
197
2,w
here
as th
e in
terv
enin
g pl
aint
iffs
bec
ame
part
ies
to th
eca
se o
n Se
ptem
ber
14, 1
971.
How
ever
, in
Bra
dley
v. S
choo
lB
oard
,U
.S(4
2 U
.S.L
.W. 4
703,
471
1, M
ay 1
5,19
74),
the
Supr
eme
Cou
rt h
eld
that
"th
e D
istr
ict C
ourt
in it
s di
scre
tion
may
allo
w p
etiti
oner
s a
reas
onab
le a
ttor-
neys
' fee
for
ser
vice
s re
nder
ed"
prio
r to
Jul
y 1,
197
2.Se
ctio
n 71
8 pr
ovid
es in
par
t tha
t in
a sc
hool
des
egre
-ga
tion
case
"th
e co
urt,
in it
s di
scre
tion,
upo
n a
find
ing
that
the
proc
eedi
ngs
wer
e ne
cess
ary
to b
ring
abo
ut c
om-
plia
nce,
may
allo
w th
e pr
evai
ling
part
y, o
ther
than
the
Uni
ted
Stat
es, a
rea
sona
ble
atto
rney
's f
ee a
s pa
rt o
f th
eco
sts.
"It
is o
ur u
nder
stan
ding
fro
m th
e re
cord
that
the
dis-
tric
t cou
rt h
as n
ot a
war
ded
any
spec
ific
fee
s to
the
inte
r-ve
ning
pla
intif
fs' a
ttorn
eys;
the
cour
t has
the
disc
retio
nto
do
so if
the
atto
rney
s' s
ervi
ces
fall
with
in th
e lim
ita-
tions
set
for
th in
sec
tion
718.
Par
ticul
arly
, the
cou
rt w
illbe
req
uire
d to
det
erm
ine
whe
ther
the
inte
rven
ing
plai
ntif
fsar
e "t
he p
reva
iling
par
ty"
unde
r al
l the
cir
cum
stan
ces.
We
expr
ess
no o
pini
on o
n th
is is
sue
inas
muc
h as
the
solu
tion
invo
lves
the
intim
ate
know
ledg
e of
this
leng
thy
proc
eedi
ng
2773
-196
8 th
roug
h 73
-198
4
poss
esse
d on
ly b
y th
e di
stri
ct c
ourt
, who
se d
iscr
etio
n is
calle
d fo
r by
the
stat
ute.
-
In a
ccor
danc
e w
ith M
illik
en v
. Bra
dley
,U
.S(J
uly
25, 1
974)
, we
reve
rse
the
dist
rict
cou
rt's
fin
ding
s,co
nclu
sion
s, o
rder
s an
d ru
lings
inso
far
as th
ey p
erta
in to
a m
etro
polit
an r
emed
y be
yond
the
Uni
-Gov
bou
ndar
ies;
inso
far
as th
ey p
erta
in to
a r
emed
y w
ithin
the
boun
dari
esof
Uni
-Gov
, we
vaca
te th
ose
rulin
gs a
nd r
eman
d fo
r fu
-th
er p
roce
edin
gs c
onsi
sten
t with
that
dec
isio
n. T
he d
istr
ict
cour
t sho
uld
dete
rmin
e w
heth
er th
e es
tabl
ishm
ent o
f th
eU
ni-G
ov b
ound
arie
s w
ithou
t a li
ke r
eest
ablis
hmen
t of
IPS
boun
dari
es"
war
rant
s an
inte
r-di
stri
ct r
emed
y w
ithin
Uni
-G
ov in
acc
orda
nce
with
Mill
iken
."In
all
othe
r re
spec
ts, t
he f
indi
ngs,
con
clus
ions
, ord
ers
and
rulin
gs o
f th
e di
stri
ct c
ourt
are
aff
irm
ed a
nd th
e ca
seis
rem
ande
d fo
r a
prom
pt f
orm
ulat
ion
of a
dec
ree
dire
cted
to e
limin
atin
g th
e se
greg
atio
n fo
und
toex
ist
in I
PSsc
hool
s.
A. t
rue
Cop
y:
Tes
te :
RE
VE
RSE
D I
N P
AR
T, A
FFIR
ME
D I
N P
AR
T,
AN
D R
EM
AN
DE
D.
Cle
rk o
f th
e U
nite
d St
ates
Cou
rtf
App
eals
for
the
Seve
nth
Cir
cuit.
22 I
n M
illik
env.
Bra
dley
,.
..
.U
.S.
..
..
(Jul
y25
,19
74)
,"T
hebo
unda
ries
of
the
Det
roit
Scho
ol D
istr
ict,
..
.ar
e co
term
inou
s w
ithth
e bo
unda
ries
of
the
city
of
Det
roit,
..
.es
tabl
ishe
d ov
er a
cen
tury
ago
by n
eutr
al le
gisl
atio
n w
hen
the
city
was
inco
rpor
ated
..
.."
23 "
Spec
ific
ally
it m
ust b
e sh
own
that
rac
ially
dis
crim
inat
ory
acts
of
the
stat
e or
loca
l sch
ool d
istr
icts
, or
of a
sin
gle
scho
ol d
istr
ict h
ave
been
a s
ubst
antia
l cau
se o
f in
ter-
dist
rict
seg
rega
tion.
Thu
s an
inte
r-di
stri
ct r
emed
y m
ight
be
in o
rder
whe
re th
e ra
cial
ly d
iscr
imin
ator
yac
ts o
f on
e or
mor
e sc
hool
dis
tric
ts c
ause
d ra
cial
seg
rega
tion
in a
nad
jace
nt d
istr
ict,
or w
here
dis
tric
t lin
es h
ave
been
del
iber
atel
y dr
awn
on th
e ba
sis
of r
ace.
".
.U
.S. a
t.
.C
f. M
r. J
ustic
e St
ewar
t'sco
ncur
ring
opi
nion
: "W
ere
it to
be
show
n .
..
that
sta
te o
ffic
ials
had
cont
ribu
ted
to th
e se
para
tion
of th
e ra
ces
by d
raw
ing
or r
edra
win
gsc
hool
dis
tric
t lin
es.
..
;or
by
purp
osef
ul, r
acia
lly d
iscr
imin
ator
yus
e of
sta
te h
ousi
ng o
r zo
ning
law
s, th
en a
dec
ree
calli
ngfo
r tr
ansf
erof
pupi
lsac
ross
dist
rict
lines
or f
orre
stru
ctur
ing
ofdi
stri
ctlin
esm
ight
wel
l be
appr
opri
ate.
"
USC
A 4
061T
he S
chef
fer
Pres
s, I
nc.,
Chi
cago
, Illi
nois
-8-2
1-74
-225
73-1
968
thro
ugh
73-1
984
20
In S
cheu
er v
. Rho
des,
.U
.S..
,42
U.S
.L.W
. 454
3,45
45 (
Apr
. 17,
197
4), M
r. C
hief
Jus
tice
Bur
ger
said
for
a un
anim
ous
cour
t (M
r. J
ustic
e D
ougl
as to
ok n
o pa
rt)
:H
owev
er, s
ince
Ex
pate
You
ng, 2
09 U
.S. 1
23(1
907)
, it h
as b
een
settl
ed th
at th
e E
leve
nth
Am
end-
men
t pro
vide
s no
shi
eld
for
a st
ate
offi
cial
con
fron
ted
by a
cla
im th
at h
e ha
d ,d
epri
ved
anot
her
ofa
fede
ral
righ
t und
er th
e co
lor
of s
tate
law
. Ex
pa.r
te Y
oung
teac
hes
that
whe
n a
stat
e of
fice
r ac
ts u
nder
a st
ate
law
in a
man
ner
viol
ativ
e of
the
Fede
ral
Con
stitu
tion,
he"c
omes
into
con
flic
t with
the
supe
rior
auth
ority
of th
at C
onst
itutio
n an
d lie
is in
that
case
str
ippe
dof
his
off
icia
l or
repr
esen
tativ
e ch
arac
ter
and
issu
bjec
ted
in h
is p
erso
n to
the
cons
eque
nces
of
his
indi
vidu
al c
ondu
ct. T
he S
tate
has
no p
ower
toim
part
to h
im a
ny im
mun
ity f
rom
resp
onsi
bilit
yto
the
supr
eme
auth
ority
of
the
Uni
ted
Stat
es.
209
U.S
., at
159
-160
. (E
mph
asis
supp
lied.
)"In
Coo
per
v. A
aron
, 358
U.S
. 1, 4
, 19-
20 (
1958
), th
eSu
prem
e C
ourt
sai
d:A
s th
is c
ase
reac
hes
us it
rai
ses
ques
tions
of
the
high
est i
mpo
rtan
ce to
the
mai
nten
ance
of
our
fede
ral
syst
em o
f go
vern
men
t. It
nec
essa
rily
invo
lves
a c
laim
by th
e G
over
nor
and
Leg
isla
ture
of a
Sta
te th
at th
ere
is n
o du
tyon
sta
te o
ffic
ials
to o
bey
fede
ral c
ourt
or-
ders
res
ting
on th
is C
ourt
'sco
nsid
ered
inte
rpre
ta-
tion
of th
e U
nite
d St
ates
Con
sti,
-itio
n. S
peci
fica
llyit
invo
lves
act
ions
by
the
Gov
ern
c an
d L
egis
latu
reof
Ark
ansa
sup
on th
e pr
emis
e th
at th
eyar
e no
tbo
und
by o
ur h
oldi
ng in
Bro
wn
v. B
oard
of
Edu
catio
n,34
7 U
.S. 4
83.
The
pri
ncip
les
anno
unce
d in
that
dec
isio
n an
d th
eob
edie
nce
of th
e St
ates
to th
em, a
ccor
ding
toth
eco
mm
and
of th
e C
onst
itutio
n,ar
e in
disp
ensa
ble
for
the
prot
ectio
n of
the
free
dom
guar
ante
ed b
y ou
r fu
n-da
men
tal c
hart
er f
or a
ll of
us. O
ur c
onst
itutio
nal i
deal
of e
qual
just
ice
unde
r la
wis
thus
mad
ea
livin
g tr
uth.
The
Ele
vent
h A
men
dmen
tdo
es n
ot p
reve
nten
forc
e-m
ent o
f th
e Fo
urte
enth
Am
endm
ent,
whi
ch c
omm
ands
that
2173
-196
8 th
roug
h 73
-198
4
no s
tate
sha
ll "d
eny
to a
ny p
erso
n w
ithin
its
juri
sdic
tion
the
equa
l pro
tect
ion
of th
e la
ws.
"R
es d
'udi
cata
.Se
vera
l of
the
scho
ol b
oard
s ou
tsid
eof
IPS
terr
itory
con
tend
that
they
wer
e de
priv
ed o
f du
epr
oces
s of
law
by
the
dist
rict
cou
rt's
dec
isio
n to
mak
ea
port
ion
of it
s pr
ior
hold
ing.
in I
ndia
napo
lis I
res
judi
cata
,al
thou
gh th
ese
othe
r sc
hool
boa
rds
had
not b
ecom
e pa
rtie
sto
the
litig
atio
n un
til a
fter
Ind
iana
polis
I h
ad b
een
de-
cide
d.
On
June
11,
197
3, th
e co
urt r
uled
that
its
prev
ious
judg
men
t "to
the
effe
ct th
at th
e Sc
hool
City
of
Indi
a-na
polis
mai
ntai
ns a
sch
ool s
yste
m w
hich
isse
greg
ated
by o
pera
tion
of la
w is
res
juds
cata
..
.."
In
Indi
anap
olis
II th
e ju
dge
.rei
tera
ted
wha
t par
t of
rnkl
iain
arpo
tisI
heco
nsid
ered
bin
ding
on
the
part
ies.
He
said
that
the
issu
e"t
hat I
PS w
as u
nlaw
fully
seg
rega
ting
the
publ
ic s
choo
lsw
ithin
its
boun
dari
es"
was
res
indi
ca:a
. Thi
s is
sue
had
been
vig
orou
sly
foug
ht b
y IP
S in
the
dist
rict
cou
rt a
ndha
d be
en a
ffir
med
by
this
cou
rt a
fter
equa
lly s
piri
ted
.op
posi
tion
by I
PS h
ere.
Uni
ted
Stat
esv.
Boa
rd o
f Sc
hool
Com
mis
sion
ers,
332
F. S
upp.
655
(S.
D. I
nd.
1971
), a
ff'd
,47
4 F.
2d 8
1 (7
th C
ir.)
, cer
t. de
nied
, 413
U.S
. 920
(19
73).
In I
ndia
napo
lis I
I, th
e di
stri
ctco
urt d
id "
not c
onsi
der
its c
oncl
usio
ns in
[re
gard
tom
etro
polit
an d
eseg
rega
tion]
as r
es ju
dica
ta."
368
F. S
upp.
at 1
195.
The
out
side
sch
ool b
oard
s m
ade
no a
ttem
pt to
atta
ckth
e is
sue
of d
e ju
re s
egre
gatio
nw
ithin
IPS
. In
fact
mos
tof
them
, as
wel
l as
the
stat
eof
fici
als,
hav
e ar
gued
in th
is.
appe
al th
at I
PS s
houl
d be
dese
greg
ated
with
in it
sow
nbo
unda
ries
.
In B
radl
ey v
. Mill
iken
, 338
F. S
upp.
582
, 594
(E
.D. M
ich.
1971
), th
e di
stri
ct c
ourt
fou
nda
de y
ure
segr
egat
ed p
ublic
scho
ol s
yste
m in
ope
ratio
n in
the
City
of
Det
roit.
The
Cou
rt o
f A
ppea
ls f
or th
e Si
xth
Cir
cuit,
aft
er n
otin
gth
at th
e 53
sch
ool d
istr
icts
outs
ide
of D
etro
it w
hich
the
dist
rict
cou
rt in
clud
ed in
the
dese
greg
atio
n ar
ea s
houl
dbe
mad
e pa
rtie
s an
d be
giv
enan
opp
ortu
nity
to b
e he
ard,
adde
d th
at "
the
Dis
tric
t Cou
rtw
ill n
ot b
e re
quir
ed to
re-
ceiv
e an
y ad
ditio
nal e
vide
nce
as to
the
mat
ters
con
tain
edin
its
Rul
ing
..
. rep
orte
d at
338
F. S
upp.
582
, or
its F
ind-
ings
of
Fact
and
Con
clus
ions
of L
aw o
n th
e 'D
etro
it-on
ly
?3 -
1968
thro
ugh
73-1
984
16
The
Sup
rem
e C
ourt
fur
ther
con
clud
ed th
at, e
ven
ifst
ate
agen
cies
par
ticip
ated
inth
e m
aint
enar
ce o
f th
eD
etro
it sy
stem
, as
the
low
er c
ourt
s ha
d he
ld, i
t did
not
follo
w th
at a
n in
terd
istr
ict r
emed
y w
ould
be
cons
titu-
tiona
lly ju
stif
ied
or r
equi
red.
In th
e pr
esen
t cas
e, b
ased
upo
n th
e di
stri
ct c
ourt
'sco
mpr
ehen
sive
and
det
aile
dre
cita
lof
the
hist
ory
ofIn
dian
a la
w a
nd p
roce
dure
per
tain
ing
to I
ndia
na s
choo
ls,
appe
arin
g in
332
F. S
upp.
at 6
58-7
7 an
d in
368
F. S
tipp.
at 1
199-
1205
, we
conc
lude
, as
the
dist
rict
cou
rt d
id, t
hat
/le s
tate
off
icia
ls h
ave,
by
vari
ous
acts
and
om
issi
ons,
prom
oted
seg
rega
tion
and
inhi
bite
d de
segr
egat
ion
with
inIP
S, s
o th
at th
e st
ate,
as
the
agen
cy u
ltim
atel
y ch
arge
dun
der
Indi
ana
Yaw
with
the
oper
atio
nof
the
publ
icsc
hool
s, h
as a
n af
firm
ativ
e du
ty to
ass
ist t
he I
PS B
oard
in d
eseg
rega
ting
IPS
with
in it
s bo
unda
ries
(se
e Pa
rt\
IV h
ereo
f).
\/O
nth
e ot
her
hand
, the
dis
tric
t cou
rt's
fin
ding
s, r
ulin
gs,
orde
rs a
nd d
iscu
ssio
n re
latin
g to
a m
etro
polit
an r
emed
ybe
yond
the
Uni
-Gov
bou
ndar
ies
are
reve
rsed
. Tho
se r
e-la
ting
to a
met
ropo
litan
rem
edy
with
in U
ni-G
ov a
reva
cate
d an
d re
man
ded
(see
last
sec
tion
of th
is o
pini
on).
IVD
ISM
AN
TL
ING
TIT
E D
UA
L S
YST
EM
WIT
ITT
NT
HE
IN
DIA
NA
POL
IS P
UB
LIC
SC
HO
OL
SSo
-cal
led
"whi
te f
light
" is
not
an
acce
ptab
le r
easo
n fo
rfa
iling
to d
ism
antle
a d
ual s
choo
l. sy
stem
. "[]
t can
not
..
.be
acc
epte
d as
a r
easo
n fo
r ac
hiev
ing
anyt
hing
less
than
com
plet
e up
root
ing
ofth
e du
alsc
hbol
syst
em."
Uni
ted
Stat
es v
. Sco
tland
Nec
k C
ity B
oard
of
Edu
catio
n,40
7 U
.S. 4
84, 4
91 (
1970
). S
ee a
lso
Mon
roe
v. B
oard
of
Com
mis
sion
ers,
391
U.S
. 450
, 459
(19
68).
Whe
re s
yste
m-w
ide
dual
ism
has
bee
n fo
und,
as
here
,".
..
[the
]Sc
hool
Boa
rd h
as th
e af
firm
ativ
e du
ty to
dese
greg
ate
the
entir
e sy
stem
'roo
t and
bra
nch,
'" a
nd "
the
Dis
tric
t Cou
rt m
nst
..
.de
cree
all-
ont d
eseg
rega
tion
..
.."
Key
es v
. Sch
ool D
istr
ict N
o. 1
, 413
U.S
. 189
, 213
,21
4 (1
973)
.W
e m
ust g
uard
aga
inst
per
mitt
ing
the
"whi
tefl
ight
" co
nsid
erat
ions
und
uly
to d
elay
com
plet
e de
segr
ega-
I
1773
-196
8 th
roug
h 73
-198
4
tion
with
in I
PS n
ow th
at M
illik
en v
. Bra
dley
has
dis
pose
dof
the
met
ropo
litan
rem
edy.
Subs
eque
nt to
oral
arg
umen
t in
thes
e ap
peal
s, th
ere
cord
has
bee
n su
pple
men
ted
to in
clud
e an
ord
er e
nter
edby
the
dist
rict
cou
rt o
n Ju
ly 3
,1.
974,
whe
reby
IPS
has
been
dir
ecte
d to
con
tinue
for
the
1974
-75
scho
ol y
ear
the
inte
rim
pla
n in
eff
ect f
or th
e 19
73-7
4 sc
hool
yea
r, e
xcep
tth
at f
eede
r as
sign
men
ts to
Tho
mas
Car
r H
owe
Hig
hSc
hool
are
to b
e ar
rang
ed "
to in
sure
that
the
fres
hman
clas
s at
suc
h sc
hool
for
the
com
ing
scho
ol y
ear
will
incl
ude
a m
inor
ity r
ace
enro
llmen
t of
not l
ess
than
15%
."O
bvio
. .':y
man
y st
eps
have
bee
n. ta
ken
to d
ism
antle
the
IPS
dual
sch
ool s
yste
m w
ithin
. its
bou
ndar
ies,
but
mor
e st
eps
mus
t be
take
n. T
he S
upre
me
Cou
rt's
man
date
to u
s to
dev
elop
a p
lan
of d
eseg
rega
tion
that
"pr
omis
esre
alis
tical
ly to
wor
k no
w"
(Gre
en v
. Cou
nty
Scho
ol B
oard
,39
1 U
.S. a
t 439
), r
equi
res
us to
rem
and
the
case
"fo
rfu
rthe
r pr
ocee
ding
s co
nsis
tent
with
[M
illik
en v
. Bra
dley
]le
adin
g to
pro
mpt
for
mul
atio
n of
a d
ecre
e di
rect
ed to
elim
inat
ing
the
segr
egat
ion
foun
d to
exi
st"
with
in I
PS.
V
MIS
CE
LL
AN
EO
US
ISSU
ES
ON
APP
EA
LR
ecus
a.tio
nof
Dis
tric
tJu
dge.
The
stat
eof
fici
als
(Gov
erno
r, A
ttorn
ey G
ener
al, S
tate
Sup
erin
tend
ent o
rPu
blic
Ins
truc
tion
and
Stat
e B
oard
of
Edu
catio
n) m
oved
tore
cuse
_ th
e di
stri
ct ju
dge
by f
iling
an
affi
davi
tof
alle
ged
pers
onal
bia
s or
pre
judi
ce u
nder
28
-U.S
.C. §
144
.T
he a
ffid
avit
stat
ed th
at o
n D
ecem
ber
27, 1
.972
the
judg
esu
bmitt
ed to
an
inte
rvie
w w
hich
was
pub
lishe
d in
six
wee
kly
new
spap
ers
and
whi
ch a
llege
dly
evin
ced
an a
tti-
tude
of
prej
udgm
ent o
n th
e lia
bilit
y of
the
stat
e of
fici
als.
The
por
tion
of th
e in
terv
iew
to w
hich
the
stat
e of
fici
als
obje
cted
rea
d as
fol
low
s:T
he ju
dge
expl
aine
d th
at h
e ha
d in
volv
ed th
eci
ty's
per
iphe
ral
dist
rict
sin
the
suit
beca
uSe
the
raci
al im
bala
nce
that
is s
een.
in th
e sc
hool
s of
the
Indi
anap
olis
Pub
lic S
choo
ls s
yste
m e
xist
s be
caus
eof
hou
sing
pat
tern
s in
the
city
.
73-1
968
thro
ugh
73-1
984
12
Face
d w
ill a
tota
lly u
nacc
epta
ble
plan
a f
ew d
ays
befo
re th
e be
ginn
ing
of th
e 19
73-7
4 sc
hool
term
, the
cour
t tur
ned
to tw
o in
depe
nden
t com
mis
sion
ers
to p
er-
form
a h
ercu
lean
task
with
in a
min
iscu
le p
erio
d of
tim
e.T
he c
ourt
sai
d "i
n so
rrow
and
with
reg
ret"
that
"ne
ver,
sinc
e th
is th
ing
star
ted
on th
e co
mpl
aint
of
the
Uni
ted
Stat
es in
196
8.
.ha
s an
y [I
PS]
Boa
rd.
.. g
one
very
far
to d
o an
ythi
ng, r
eally
, unl
ess
they
wer
e pu
shed
and
orde
red"
and
then
"w
hen
they
are
ord
ered
, the
y us
ually
... c
ome
up w
ith a
n al
tern
ativ
e id
ea th
at d
oesn
't go
qui
teas
far
as
the
orde
r, o
r yo
u w
ant a
-st
ay o
r so
met
hing
- -an
ythi
ng to
put
it o
ff."
In a
ppoi
ntin
g th
e tw
o co
mm
issi
oner
s to
for
mul
ate
apl
an, t
he d
istr
ict c
ourt
fol
low
ed th
e pr
oced
ure
appr
oved
in S
wan
n v.
Cha
rlot
te-M
eckl
enbu
rg B
oard
of
Edu
catio
n,su
pra
at 1
6, 2
5:In
def
ault
by th
e sc
hool
aut
hori
ties
of th
eir
oblig
a-tio
n to
pro
ffer
acc
epta
ble
rem
edie
s, a
dis
tric
t cou
rtha
s br
oad
pow
er to
fas
hion
a r
emed
y th
at w
ill a
ssur
ea
unita
ry s
choo
l sys
tem
.a
a
It w
as b
ecau
se o
f th
is to
tal f
ailu
re o
f th
e sc
hool
boar
d th
at th
e D
istr
ict C
ourt
was
obl
iged
to tu
rnto
oth
er q
ualif
ied
sour
ces,
and
Dr.
Fin
ger
[a c
ourt
-ap
poin
ted
expe
rt]
was
des
igna
ted
to a
ssis
t the
Dis
-tr
ict C
ourt
to d
o w
hat t
he b
oard
sho
uld
have
don
e.T
he c
omm
issi
on a
dher
ed to
the
dist
rict
cou
rt's
gui
de-
lines
as
appr
oved
in S
wan
n. b
y al
teri
ng a
ttend
ance
zone
s,by
con
tiguo
us a
nd n
on-c
ontig
uous
pai
ring
and
clu
ster
ing,
by "
unge
rrym
ande
ring
" an
d by
cre
atin
g la
rger
"ne
ighb
or-
hood
sch
ools
." T
he c
omm
issi
on p
rese
nted
its
reco
mm
ende
dpl
an, e
ntitl
ed "
The
Que
st f
or H
uman
Dig
nity
" w
ithin
ten
days
of
its a
ppoi
ntm
ent.
Thi
s co
uld
not h
ave
been
acco
mpl
ishe
d w
ithou
t the
tem
pora
ryus
eof
. the
IPS
plan
ning
sta
ff. I
f in
fac
t the
com
mis
sion
mad
eus
e of
plan
ning
sta
ff m
ater
ial,
it ob
viou
sly
mad
e m
uch
mor
eef
fect
ive
use
of th
at m
ater
ial t
han
IPS
had
done
.W
e co
nclu
de th
at th
e di
stri
ct c
ourt
act
ed p
rope
rly
inre
ject
ing
the
IPS
plan
, in
hold
ing
the
IPS
boar
din
1373
-196
8 th
roug
h 73
-198
4
defa
ult,
in a
ppoi
ntin
g th
e co
mm
issi
on a
nd in
tem
pora
rily
assi
gnin
g th
e pl
anni
ng s
taff
of
IPS
to th
e co
mm
issi
on."
Fina
lly, i
n re
gard
to th
e IP
S bo
ard'
s at
tack
s on
&e"
---
dist
rict
cou
rt's
ord
ers,
we
hold
that
the
cour
t did
not
abus
e its
dis
cret
ion
in o
rder
ing
IPS
to s
eek
avai
labl
efe
dera
l fun
ds to
exp
edite
des
egre
gatio
n. T
his
met
hof
impl
emen
tatio
n of
a d
ecre
e in
tend
ed to
elim
ina
adu
al s
choo
l sys
tem
has
bee
n ap
prov
ed b
y se
vera
l co
i rts
.U
nite
d St
ates
v. T
exas
, 342
F. S
upp.
24,
29
(E.D
. Tex
.19
71),
aff
'd, 4
66 F
.2d
518
(5th
Cir
. 197
2); W
hitte
nber
yv.
Gre
envi
lle C
ount
y Sc
hool
Dis
t., 2
98 F
. Sup
p. 7
84, 7
90(D
.S.
C.
1.96
9)(t
hree
-jud
gepa
nel)
.In
Plaq
uent
hies
Pari
sh S
choo
l Boa
rd v
. Uni
ted
Stat
es, 4
15 F
.2d
817,
833
(5th
Cir
. 1.9
69),
the
cour
t of
appe
als
foun
d a
"bro
adly
wri
tten"
ord
er r
equi
ring
app
licat
ion
for
fede
ral a
id u
n-ju
stif
ied,
but
add
ed:
Thi
s di
rect
ion
is w
ithou
t pre
judi
ce to
the
righ
tof
the
dist
rict
cou
rt in
the
futu
re in
a s
peci
fic
situ
a-tio
n as
to s
peci
fic
fund
s to
req
uire
that
app
licat
ion
be m
ade
whe
n it
is s
how
n th
at th
e bo
ard
has
faile
dto
app
ly f
or s
uch
fund
s as
par
t of
a pl
an o
r sc
hem
eto
impe
de th
e en
d of
the
dual
sys
tem
of
scho
ols,
or to
dis
crim
inat
e ag
ains
t Neg
ro c
hild
ren.
In th
e la
st a
naly
sis,
we
mus
t loo
k to
Sw
ann,
whe
reth
e Su
prem
e C
ourt
sai
d (4
02 U
.S. a
t 28)
:.
The
rem
edy
for
such
[de
:lur
e]se
greg
atio
n m
aybe
adm
inis
trat
ivel
y aw
kwar
d, in
conv
enie
nt, a
nd e
ven
biza
rre
in s
ome
situ
atio
ns a
nd m
ay im
pose
bur
dens
on s
ome;
but
all a
wkw
ardn
ess
and
inco
nven
ienc
eca
nnot
be
avoi
ded
in. t
he in
teri
m p
erio
d w
hen
rem
e-di
al a
djus
tinen
ts a
re b
eing
mad
e to
elim
inat
e th
edu
al s
choo
l sys
tem
s.W
e be
lieve
that
in th
is e
ase
the
dist
rict
cou
rt. p
rope
rly
requ
este
d th
e de
fend
ants
to s
eek
fede
ral f
unds
.
" Se
e B
radl
ey v
. Mill
iken
, 484
F.2
d 21
5, 2
52 (
6th
Cir
.), v
acat
ed o
not
her
grou
nds,
...
U.S
....
,(J
uly
25, 1
974)
: "[T
]he
defe
ndan
ts a
ndsc
hool
dis
tric
ts in
volv
ed w
ill c
ontin
ue to
sup
ply
adm
inis
trat
ive
and
staf
f as
sist
ance
to th
e [c
ourt
-app
oint
ed]
pane
l upo
n its
req
uest
."