446 U.S. 923 (1980), 78-671, Delaware State Board of Education v. Evans

Docket Nº:No. 78-671
Citation:446 U.S. 923, 100 S.Ct. 1862, 64 L.Ed.2d 278
Party Name:DELAWARE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION v. Brenda EVANS et al. ALEXIS I. du PONT SCHOOL DISTRICT et al. v. Brenda EVANS et al No.78-672
Case Date:April 28, 1980
Court:United States Supreme Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 923

446 U.S. 923 (1980)

100 S.Ct. 1862, 64 L.Ed.2d 278

DELAWARE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

v.

Brenda EVANS et al.

ALEXIS I. du PONT SCHOOL DISTRICT et al.

v.

Brenda EVANS et al

No.78-672

No. 78-671

United States Supreme Court.

April 28, 1980

Rehearing Denied June 9, 1980.

OPINION

On petitions for writs of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied.

Mr. Justice REHNQUIST, with whom Mr. Justice STEWART and Mr. Justice POWELL join, dissenting.

The three-judge District Court which initially found a desegregation remedy to be warranted, expressly found that 10 of the 11 county school districts had established fully unitary school systems after this Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954). Evans v. Buchanan, 393 F.Supp. 428, 437, and n. 19 (D.C.Del.), summarily

Page 924

aff'd, 423 U.S. 963, 96 S.Ct. 381, 46 L.Ed.2d 293 (1975). Only the school district in the city of Wilmington was found to have engaged in discriminatory conduct--conduct which the court did not find to be purposeful. [*] The court did find, however, [100 S.Ct. 1863] that the acts of other governmental entities resulted in an interdistrict violation. I think this Court should grant certiorari to review the District Court's imposition of this remedy, even accepting as settled the finding that there was an interdistrict violation warranting an interdistrict remedy.

One principle that has been continually emphasized in the desegregation opinions of this Court is that the "scope of the remedy" formulated by a district court must be tailored to fit "the nature and extent of the constitutional violation." Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 16, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 1276, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971). In order to effectively fulfill this mandate, we have made clear that district courts must "determine how much incremental segregative effect [the constitutional] violations had on the racial distribution of the . . . school population as . . . compared to what it would have been in the absence of such constitutional violations." Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman, 433 U.S. 406, 420, 97 S.Ct. 2766, 2775, 53 L.Ed.2d 851 (1977). Without such a finding, it would not be possible for a judge to fulfill the equitable limitations commanded by Swann.

In this case, however, the courts have ignored Swann and

Page 925

Dayton, and held that as a matter of law, no such findings were required. The District Court explicitly acknowledged that it did not apply this standard in adopting the remedy in issue. The court stated that it was "fully cognizant" that the submitted plans "were formulated without...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP