103 F.Supp. 920 (D.S.C. 1952), Civ. 2657, Briggs v. Elliott

Docket Nº:Civ. 2657
Citation:103 F.Supp. 920
Party Name:Briggs v. Elliott
Case Date:March 13, 1952
Court:United States District Courts, 4th Circuit, District of South Carolina
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 920

103 F.Supp. 920 (D.S.C. 1952)

BRIGGS et al.

v.

ELLIOTT et al.

Civ. No. 2657.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina

March 13, 1952.

Harold R. Boulware, Columbia, S.C., Spottswood Robinson, III, Richmond, Va., Robert L. Carter, Thurgood Marshall, New

Page 921

York City, Arthur Shores, Birmingham, Ala., and A. T. Walden, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiffs.

T. C. Callison, Atty. Gen. of South Carolina, S. E. Rogers, Summerton, S.C., and Robert McC. Figg, Jr., for defendants.

Before PARKER and DOBIE Circuit Judges, and TIMMERMAN, District Judge.

PARKER, Circuit Judge.

On June 23, 1951, this court entered its decree in this cause finding that the provisions of the Constitution and statutes of South Carolina requiring segregation of the races in the public schools are not of themselves violative of the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal Constitution, but that defendants had denied to plaintiffs rights guaranteed by that amendment in failing to furnish for Negroes in School District 22 educational facilities and oppor opportunities equal to those furnished white persons. That decree denied the application for an injunction abolishing segregation in the schools but directed defendants promptly to furnish Negroes within the district educational facilities and opportunities equal to those furnished white persons and to report to the court within six months as to the action that had been taken to effectuate the court's decree. See Briggs v. Elliott, D.C., 98 F.Supp. 529. Plaintiffs appealed from so much of the decree as denied an injunction that would abolish segregation and this appeal was pending in the Supreme Court of the United States when the defendants, on December 21, 1951, filed with this court the report required by its decree, which report was forwarded to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court thereupon remanded the case that we might give consideration to the report and vacated our decree in order that we might take whatever action we might deem appropriate in the light of the facts brought to our attention upon its consideration. Briggs v. Elliott, 342 U.S. 350, 72 S.Ct. 327. When the case was called for hearing on March 3, 1952, defendants filed a supplementary report showing what additional steps had been taken since the report of December 21, 1951, to comply with the requirements of the court's decree and equalize the educational facilities and opportunities of Negroes with those of white persons within the district.

The reports of December 21 and March 3 filed by defendants, which are admitted by plaintiffs to be true and correct and which are so found by the court, show beyond question that defendants have proceeded promptly and in good faith to comply with the court's decree. 1 As a part of a state-wide educational program to equalize and improve educational facilities and opportunities throughout the State of South Carolina, a program of school consolidation has been carried through for Clarendon County, District No. 22 has been

Page 922

consolidated with other districts so as to abolish inferior schools, public moneys have been appropriated to build modern school buildings, within the consolidated district, and contracts have been let which will insure the completion of the buildings before the next school year. The curricula of the Negro schools within the district has already been made equal to the curricula of the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP