Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education

CourtU.S. Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM
CitationAlexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19, 90 S.Ct. 29, 24 L.Ed.2d 19 (1969)
Decision Date29 October 1969
Docket NumberNo. 632,632
PartiesBeatrice ALEXANDER et al., Petitioners, v. HOLMES COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al

Jack Greenberg, New York City, for petitioners.

Louis F. Oberdorfer, Washington, D.C., for Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, as amicus curiae.

Jeris Leonard, Washington, D.C., A. F. Summer and John C. Satterfield, Jackson, Miss., for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This case comes to the Court on a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The petition was granted on October 9, 1969, and the case set down for early argument. The question presented is one of paramount importance, involving as it does the denial of fundamental rights to many thousands of school children, who are presently attending Mississippi schools under segregated conditions contrary to the applicable decisions of this Court. Against this background the Court of Appeals should have denied all motions for additional time because continued operation of segregated schools under a standard of allowing 'all deliberate speed' for desegregation is no longer constitutionally permissible. Under explicit holdings of this Court the obligation of every school district is to terminate dual school systems at once and to operate now and hereafter only unitary schools. Griffin v. County School Board, 377 U.S. 218, 234, 84 S.Ct. 1226, 1235, 12 L.Ed.2d 256 (1964); Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430, 438—439, 442, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 1694—1695, 1696, 20 L.Ed.2d 716 (1968). Accordingly,

It is hereby adjudged, ordered, and decreed:

1. The Court of Appeals' order of August 28, 1969, is vacated, and the case is remanded to that court to issue its decree and order, effective immediately, declaring that each of the school districts here involved may no longer operate a dual school system based on race or color, and directing that they begin immediately to operate as unitary school systems within which no person is to be effectively excluded from any school because of race or color.

2. The Court of Appeals may in its discretion direct the schools here involved to accept all or any part of the August 11, 1969, recommendations of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, with any modifications which that court deems proper insofar as those recommendations insure a totally unitary school system for all eligible pupils without regard to race or color.

The Court of...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
280 cases
  • Spangler v. Pasadena City Board of Education
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • March 12, 1970
    ...opportunity is of "paramount importance," and delays in vindicating that right are intolerable. Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19, 20, 90 S.Ct. 29, 24 L.Ed. 2d 19 (1969); Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Board, 396 U.S. 290, 90 S.Ct. 608, 24 L.Ed.2d 477 (Janua......
  • Crawford v. Board of Education
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • June 28, 1976
    ...U.S. at p. 13, 91 S.Ct. 1267) and has indicated that this obligation must be complied with 'at once.' (Alexander v. Board of Education (1969) 396 U.S. 19, 20, 90 S.Ct. 29, 24 L.Ed.2d 19; Carter v. West Feliciana School Bd. (1969) 396 U.S. 290, 291, 90 S.Ct. 608, 24 L.Ed.2d 477.) These prono......
  • San Francisco Unified School Dist. v. Johnson
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • January 26, 1971
    ...States Supreme Court has directed that segregation in public schools must terminate 'at once.' (Alexander v. Holmes Board of Education (1969) 396 U.S. 19, 20, 90 S.Ct. 29, 24 L.Ed.2d 19.) Since section 1009.5, under one interpretation, may delay desegregation, prompt judicial action is esse......
  • Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, Denver, Colo., Nos. 74-1349
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • September 16, 1975
    ...See, e. g., Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 28 L.Ed.2d 554; Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Educ., 396 U.S. 19, 90 S.Ct. 29, 24 L.Ed.2d 19. In Keyes however, the Court confronted a different variety of intentional, system-wide segregation, to be......
  • Get Started for Free
16 books & journal articles
  • The jurisprudence of Justice Byron White.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 103 No. 2, November 1993
    • November 1, 1993
    ...Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1 (1971); Northcross v. Board of Educ., 397 U.S. 232 (1970); Alexander v. Holmes County Bd. of Educ., 396 U.S. 19 (1969). (106) 403 U.S. 217 (1971). (107) See, e.g., Gayle v. Browder, 352 U.S. 903 (1956) (per curiam) (city buses); Holmes......
  • Connecting the dots: Grutter, school desegregation, and federalism.
    • United States
    • William and Mary Law Review Vol. 45 No. 4, March 2004
    • March 1, 2004
    ...290, 291 (1970) (reversing an order delaying the merger of student bodies into unitary system by six months); Alexander v. Holmes County Bd. of Educ., 396 U.S. 19, 20 (1969) (vacating an order delaying desegregation for four months). Uncertainty over the terms of the orders still remained. ......
  • Schools, race, and money.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 109 No. 2, November 1999
    • November 1, 1999
    ...v. School District No. 1,413 U.S. 189 (1973), which held that Denver must desegregate all city schools, and Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19 (1969), which declared that desegregation must occur "at once" and that districts must "operate now and hereafter only unita......
  • PROCEDURAL LOSSES AND THE PYRRHIC VICTORY OF ABOLISHING QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.
    • United States
    • Washington University Law Review Vol. 99 No. 5, June 2022
    • June 1, 2022
    ...Id. at 807 & n. 112. (429.) See id. at 805-07; Davidson, supra note 384. (430.) See, e.g., Alexander v. Holmes Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 396 U.S. 19, 20 (1969) (per curiam) (ordering school districts "to terminate dual school systems at once and to operate now and hereafter only unitary (431.......
  • Get Started for Free