414 F.2d 609 (5th Cir. 1969), 26886, Davis v. Board of School Com'rs of Mobile County

Docket Nº:26886, 27491, 27260.
Citation:414 F.2d 609
Party Name:Birdie Mae DAVIS et al., Appellants-Cross Appellees, United States of America et al., Appellants-Cross Appellees, v. BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS OF MOBILE COUNTY et al., Appellees-Cross Appellants.
Case Date:June 03, 1969
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 609

414 F.2d 609 (5th Cir. 1969)

Birdie Mae DAVIS et al., Appellants-Cross Appellees, United States of America et al., Appellants-Cross Appellees,

v.

BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS OF MOBILE COUNTY et al., Appellees-Cross Appellants.

Nos. 26886, 27491, 27260.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 3, 1969

Rehearing Denied June 20, 1969.

Vernol R. Jansen, Jr., U.S. Atty., Mobile, Ala., Stephen J. Pollak, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jerris Leonard, Asst. Attys. Gen., Frank M. Dunbaugh, Walter Gorman, David Bonderman, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., David L. Norman, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellants.

Jack Greenberg, Norman Amaker, Michael Davidson, New York City, Vernon Z. Crawford, Frankie Fields, Mobile, Ala., for appellants Birdie Mae Davis et al.

Abram L. Philips, Jr., Pierre Pelham, Palmer Pillans, George F. Wood, James D. Brooks, Mobile, Ala., for appellees.

Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, DYER, Circuit Judge, and HUNTER, District Judge.

PER CURIAM:

In No. 26,886 the District Court on July 29, 1968, entered an order formulating attendance zone lines for grades 1-8 in the city portion of the Mobile School System, adopted freedom of choice in the high school system, permitted transfer from a school into which a student was zoned if the student was in a racial minority of less than five percent, and continued a freedom of choice plan in the rural areas.

In Nos. 27,260 and 27,491 the District Court on December 20, 1968, and March 14, 1969, approved construction plans for the Howard and Toulminville schools respectively.

We consolidated and expedited these appeals for oral argument.

Page 610

It is apparent that the District Court relied wholly upon and gave literal interpretation to the directive in our decision of March 12, 1968, 5 Cir., 393 F.2d 690, that new attendance zones be drawn on a non-racial basis and ignored the unequivocal directive to make a conscious effort in locating attendance zones to desegregate and eliminate past segregation. The record shows and the statistics prove that the attendance zones formulated by the District Court are constitutionally insufficient and unacceptable, and such zones must be redrawn.

In approving a freedom of choice plan for high school students the District Court failed to follow the mandate in our opinion that no distinction was to be drawn between elementary and high school students with respect to attendance zones, and that the same principles were to govern the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP