Bradley v. School Board, City of Richmond, Va Gilliam v. School Board, City of Hopewell, Va

• Court: United States Supreme Court
• Citation: 86 S.Ct. 224,382 U.S. 103,15 L.Ed.2d 187
• Docket Number: 416,Nos. 415,s. 415
• Parties: Carolyn BRADLEY et al. v. SCHOOL BOARD, CITY OF RICHMOND, VA., et al. Renee Patrice GILLIAM et al. v. SCHOOL BOARD, CITY OF HOPEWELL, VA., et al
• Decision Date: 15 November 1965

382 U.S. 103

86 S.Ct. 224

15 L.Ed.2d 187

Carolyn BRADLEY et al.

v SCHOOL BOARD, CITY OF RICHMOND, VA., et al.

Renee Patrice GILLIAM et al.

v. SCHOOL BOARD, CITY OF HOPEWELL, VA., et al.

Nos. 415, 416.

Decided Nov. 15, 1965.

Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III, S. W. Tucker and Henry L. Marsh III, for petitioners.

J. Elliott Drinard and Henry T. Wickham, for respondents School Board, City of Richmond, Va., and others.

Frederick T. Gray, for respondents School Board, City of Hopewell, and others.

PER CURIAM.

The petitions for writs of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit are granted for the purpose of deciding whether it is proper to approve school desegregation plans without considering, at a full evidentiary hearing, the impact on those plans of faculty allocation on an alleged racial basis. We hold that the Court of Appeals erred in both these cases in this regard, 345 F.2d 310, 319—321; 345 F.2d 325, 328.

Plans for desegregating the public school systems of Hopewell and Richmond, Virginia, were approved by the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia without full inquiry into petitioners' contention that faculty allocation on an alleged racial basis rendered the plans inadequate under the principles of Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873. The Court of Appeals, while recognizing the standing of petitioners, as parents and pupils, to raise this contention, declined to decide its merits because no evidentiary hearings had been held on this issue. But instead of remanding the cases for such hearings prior to final approval of the plans, the Court of Appeals held that '(w)hether and when such an inquiry is to be had are matters with respect to which the District Court * * * has a large measure of discretion,' and it reasoned as follows:

'When direct measures are employed to eliminate all direct discrimination in the assignment of pupils, a District Court may defer inquiry as to the appropriateness of supplemental measures until the effect and the sufficiency of the direct ones may be determined. The possible relation of a reassignment of teachers to protection of the constitutional rights of pupils need not be determined when it is speculative. When all direct discrimination in the assignment of pupils has been eliminated, assignment of teachers may be expected to follow the racial patterns established in the schools. An earlier judicial requirement of general reassignment of all...