396 U.S. 1215 (1969), Keyes v. School District No. One, Denver, Colorado
|Citation:||396 U.S. 1215, 90 S.Ct. 12, 24 L.Ed.2d 37|
|Party Name:||Keyes v. School District No. One, Denver, Colorado|
|Case Date:||August 29, 1969|
|Court:||United States Supreme Court|
ON APPLICATION FOR VACATION OF STAY
Application for vacation of Court of Appeals' stay of preliminary injunction entered by District Court that had the effect of requiring partial implementation of a school desegregation plan is granted, the Court of Appeals' order is vacated, and the District Court's order is directed to be reinstated. A district court's order granting a preliminary injunction should not be disturbed by a reviewing court unless the grant was an abuse of discretion, which the Court of Appeals did not find here. Nor does the desire to develop public support for the desegregation plan that the Court of Appeals manifested constitute justification for delay in the plan's implementation.
See: 303 F.Supp. 279 and 289.
BRENNAN, J., lead opinion
MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN.
In this school desegregation case, I am asked to vacate a stay by the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit of a preliminary injunction entered by the District Court for the District of Colorado. The preliminary injunction has the effect of requiring partial implementation of a school desegregation plan prepared by School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado, and then rescinded by that [90 S.Ct. 13] Board after changes in membership followed a school board election.
The Court of Appeals issued the stay pending decision of an appeal taken by the School Board from the preliminary injunction. I have concluded that the stay was
improvidently granted and must be vacated. An order of a district court granting or denying a preliminary injunction should not be disturbed by a reviewing court unless it appears that the action taken on the injunction was an abuse of discretion. Alabama v. United States, 279 U.S. 229 (1929). Where a preliminary injunction has issued to vindicate constitutional rights, the presumption in favor of the District Court's action applies with particular force. The Court of Appeals did not suggest that the District Court abused its discretion. On the contrary, the Court of Appeals expressly stated that the District Court's findings of fact
represent a painstaking analysis of the evidence presented. They establish a racial imbalance in certain named schools. From the facts found, the district...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP