82 S.Ct. 10 (1961), Board of Ed. of City School Dist. of City of New Rochelle v. Taylor

Citation82 S.Ct. 10
Party NameBOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF the CITY OF NEW ROCHELLE et al., Petitioners, v. Leslie TAYLOR and Kevin Taylor, minors, by Wilbert Taylor and Hallie Taylor, their parents and next friends, et al.
Case DateAugust 30, 1961
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Page 10

82 S.Ct. 10 (1961)

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT OF the CITY OF NEW ROCHELLE et al., Petitioners,

v.

Leslie TAYLOR and Kevin Taylor, minors, by Wilbert Taylor and Hallie Taylor, their parents and next friends, et al.

United States Supreme Court.

Aug. 30, 1961

OPINION

Memorandum of Mr. Justice BRENNAN.

Petitioners, the Board of Education and the Superintendent of Schools of the New Rochelle School District, ask for a stay of the mandate of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit pending the filing and determination of their petition for certiorari to review the judgment of that court filed August 2, 1961. That judgment affirmed, one judge dissenting, the decree of the District Court for the Southern District of New York which, in a class action brought by eleven Negro children through their parents on behalf of all Negro children situated in the Lincoln Elementary School District in New Rochelle, enjoined the petitioners from requiring such children to be registered in the Lincoln Elementary School and required the petitioners to register them in a public elementary school that is racially desegregated. In affirming the District Court, the Court of Appeals stated: 'We see no occasion to grant a stay of the decree; the Board is called upon for no new public expenditures and will suffer no loss, while the school children will be prejudiced by what will soon be necessarily a year's delay at this crucial period in their education.' 2 Cir., 294 F.2d 36, 40. On August 17, 1961, petitioners applied to the Court of Appeals for a stay of the mandate pending application to this Court for a writ of certiorari. This application was denied, the Court saying: 'The majority of the panel which decided the appeal having stated that a stay should not be granted, and no new facts supporting a stay pending application for certiorari having been presented, the motion for such a stay is denied.'

The petitioners thereupon filed the instant application on August 25, 1961. I heard oral argument on August 29, 1961. On such an application, since the Court of Appeals refused the stay '* * * this court requires an extraordinary showing, before it will grant a stay of the decree below pending the application for a certiorari, * * *.' Magnum Import Co. v. Coty, 262 U.S. 159, 164, 43 S.Ct. 531, 533, 67 L.Ed. 922.

Page 11

The petitioners have not, in my judgment, carried this heavy...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP