Adams v. U.S.
| Decision Date | 10 April 1980 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 79-1468,79-1470,79-1471,79-1477 and 79-1486,s. 79-1468 |
| Citation | 620 F.2d 1277 |
| Parties | Janice ADAMS and Jack Adams, Jr., minors, by Jerrianne Adams, their natural guardian and next friend, and Jerrianne Adams; Catherine M. Neel and Camille A. Neel, minors, by Catherine Neel, their natural guardian and next friend, and Catherine Neel; Mary Edington and Susan Edington, minors, by Horace Edington, their natural guardian and next friend, and Horace Edington, The Concerned Parents for Neighborhood Schools, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, and Daniel L. Schlafly, FrederickE. Busse, Gordon L. Benson, Malcolm W. Martin, Mrs. Anita L. Bond, Mrs. JoyceBowen, Henry M. Grich, Jr. (Secretary), Rev. James L. Cummings (President),Mrs. Erma J.Lawrence, Rev. Donald E. Mayer (Vice President), Lawrence Moser, CharlesHarris, and Julius C. Dix, Benjamin M. Price, Robert W. Bernthal, David J.Mahan, Charles Brasfield (School District Superintendents) and Robert E. Wentz(Superintendent ofSchools), Appellees. UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Appellee, Janice Adams and Jack Adams, Jr., minors, by Jerrianne Adams, their naturalguardian and next friend, and Jerrianne Adams; Catherine M. Neel and Camille A.Neel, minors, by Catherine Neel, their natural guardian and next friend, andCatherineNeel; Mary Edington and Susan Edington, minors, by Horace Edington, theirnatural guardian and next friend, and Horace Edington, The Concerned Parentsfor Neighborhood Schools, Appellees, Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, and Daniel L. Schlafly, FrederickE. Busse, Gordon L. Benson, Malcolm W. Martin, Mrs. Anita L. Bond, Mrs. JoyceBowen, Henry M. Grich, Jr. (Secretary), Rev. James L. Cummings (President),Mrs. Erma J.Lawrence, Rev. Donald E. Mayer (Vice President), Lawrence Moser, CharlesHarris, and Julius C. Dix, Benjamin M. Price, Robert W. Bernthal, David J.Mahan, Charles Brasfield (School District Superintendents) and Robert E. Wentz(Superintendent ofSchools), Appellees. Earline CALDWELL, Lillie |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Richard B. Fields, Ratner & Sugarmon, Memphis, Tenn., argued, and William E. Caldwell, Memphis, Tenn., David A. Lang, St. Louis University School of Law, St. Louis, Mo., Nathaniel R. Jones, NAACP Gen. Counsel, New York City, and Thomas I. Atkins, Sp. Counsel, NAACP, Boston, Mass., on brief, for appellant, Caldwell.
William P. Russell, St. Louis, Mo., argued, Joseph S. McDuffie, and William P. Russell, St. Louis, Mo., on brief, for appellant Liddell.
Charles W. Kunderer, Klutho, Cody & Kilo, St. Louis, Mo., argued, and Jack L. Koehr, City Counselor, St. Louis, Mo., on brief, for appellant, City of St. Louis.
Anthony J. Sestric, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant, Adams.
John H. Lashly, Lashly, Caruthers, Thies, Rava & Hamel, St. Louis, Mo., argued, Paul B. Rava, Kenneth C. Brostron, Stephen A. Cooper, Alan D. Pratzel, St. Louis, Mo., on brief, for appellee, Bd. of Ed.
Sheila K. Hyatt, Legal Counsel, Jefferson City, Mo., argued, and John Ashcroft, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Mo., on brief, for appellee, State of Missouri.
Drew S. Days, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Brian K. Landsberg, Jessica Dunsay Silver, and Thomas D. Yannucci, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C. and Robert D. Kingsland, U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee, United States.
Prior to 1865, Missouri prohibited the creation or maintenance of schools for teaching black children to read or write. In 1865, the state legislature passed laws requiring that separate schools be established for black students. The substance of this legislation was incorporated in the Missouri Constitution of 1945. Separate schools were maintained by the St. Louis Board of Education pursuant to the legislation and the state constitution.
Ninety years after Missouri first required separate schools, the United States Supreme Court, in the Brown v. Board of Education decisions, found that segregated school systems were providing an inferior education to black children. It held that such systems must be disestablished with all deliberate speed. As a result of these decisions, the Missouri laws requiring separate schools were repealed or declared inoperative. The St. Louis Board of Education's response to Brown was to adopt a "neighborhood school plan." Now, twenty-six years later, St. Louis elementary and secondary schools remain segregated.
The St. Louis Board of Education failed to take effective measures to desegregate the school system in the years immediately following Brown I and has subsequently enforced policies with respect to the assignment of students, the transportation of students, the assignment of personnel and the construction of school facilities which cannot be reasonably explained without reference to racial concerns and which have contributed substantially to continuing segregation in the school system. This failure resulted in the commencement of this action in 1972.
Since 1972, the Board of Education has taken some steps to disestablish the dual system. These include the adoption of an incremental faculty desegregation plan and the opening of several specialized and magnet schools, some of which are integrated.
In our judgment, these steps, while meaningful, are not adequate to disestablish the existing segregated school system. Something more is clearly required. We thus have no alternative but to again remand this matter to the district court with directions to require the Board of Education, in consultation with the parties, a qualified expert and an interracial committee selected by the district court from all elements of the community, to develop and implement a plan that will integrate the St. Louis public schools.
Prior to the Civil war, a Missouri statute provided: "No person shall keep or teach any school for the instruction of negroes or mulattoes, in reading or writing, in this State." Act of February 16, 1847, § 1, 1847 Mo.Laws 103. Beginning in 1865, the Missouri General Assembly enacted a series of statutes requiring separate public schools for blacks. See, e. g., Act of February 17, 1865, § 13, 1865 Mo.Laws 170; Act of June 11, 1889, § 7051a, 1889 Mo.Laws 226. This segregated system was incorporated into the Missouri Constitution of 1945, which specifically provided that separate schools were to be maintained for "white and colored children." See Mo.Const. art. IX, § 1(a) (1945). Although a 1954 Attorney General opinion declared this provision unenforceable following Brown I, it remained a part of the state constitution until repealed in 1976. Statutes implementing the constitutionally mandated segregation provided for separate funding, separate enumerations, separate consolidated "colored" school districts, and the interdistrict transfer of black students. Most of these statutes were not repealed until 1957. See Act of July 6, 1957, § 1, 1957 Mo.Laws 452.
In the 1953-1954 school year, the St. Louis school district operated seven white and two...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jenkins v. State of Mo., 77-0420-CV-W-4.
......This historical background is recounted in more detail by the courts in Adams v. United States, 620 F.2d 1277, 1280-81 (8th Cir.) cert. denied, 449 U.S. 826, 101 S.Ct. 88, 66 L.Ed.2d 29 (1980); and United States v. ......
-
Liddell v. State of Mo.
......Bd. of Educ., supra, 469 F.Supp. at 1360-1361. . We reversed the district court in Adams v. United States, 620 F.2d 1277 (8th Cir.) (en banc ), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 826, 101 S.Ct. 88, 66 L.Ed.2d 29 (1980), 2 holding that the City .... Questions about this plan's implementation came before us in early 1982, when the State again protested its liability for certain desegregation costs. Liddell v. Bd. of Educ., 677 F.2d 626 (8th Cir.) ......
-
Jenkins by Agyei v. State of Mo.
......us are to the contrary. These cases are therefore distinguishable as are the boundary cases such as Morrilton, considered by this court. See Part IV, ...1, 1957 Mo.Laws 452, and the constitutional provision was not rescinded until 1976. See Adams v. United States, 620 F.2d 1277, 1280 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 826, 101 S.Ct. 88, 66 L.Ed.2d 29 (1980). . Prior to 1954, ......
-
Valley v. Rapides Parish School Bd., 81-3462
...... provides no guidance as to the rationale underlying its disallowance of neighborhood schools, our independent examination of the record persuades us of the appropriateness of the court's position. . Though mindful of the worthy community values inherent in a neighborhood school, ...denied, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 834, 74 L.Ed.2d 1027 (1983); Adams v. United States, 620 F.2d 1277 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 826, 101 S.Ct. 88, 66 L.Ed.2d 29 (1980). See Lee v. Macon County Board of ......
-
Hostile takeover: the State of Missouri, the St. Louis School District, and the struggle for quality education in the inner-city: Board of Education of the City of St. Louis v. Missouri State Board of Education.
...number could not be located for how many white students were sent to black schools. (73.) Id (74.) Id. (75.) Adams v. United States, 620 F.2d 1277, 1285 (8th Cir. 1980). In all of the schools included in this statistic, at least 90% of students were of the same race. Id. Out of 119 schools ......