Calhoun v. Latimer

Decision Date25 May 1964
Docket NumberNo. 623,623
Citation84 S.Ct. 1235,377 U.S. 263,12 L.Ed.2d 288
PartiesFred S. CALHOUN et al., Petitioners, v. A. C. LATIMER et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Constance B. Motley, New York City, for petitioners.

Burke Marshall, Houston, Tex., for the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.

A. C. Latimer, Atlanta, Ga., for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

During the argument of this case, counsel for respondents stated that after the decree below was entered the Atlanta Board of Education adopted additional provisions authorizing free transfers with certain limitations in the city's high schools. At our invitation both parties filed supplemental memoranda dealing with this aspect of the case. It appears therefrom that since the argument the Atlanta Board of Education on April 8, 1964, adopted and promulgated a new formal resolution stating the present policy of the Board and the factors it will consider in making initial assignments of pupils and in permitting transfers for the school year 1964-1965. Petitioners deny that this resolution meets the constitutional standards and assert that with respect to students in the elementary schools the plan will not achieve desegregation until sometime in the 1970's.

In light of the d velopments at and since the argument, we deem it appropriate that the nature and effect of the Board's resolution of April 8, 1964, be appraised by the District Court in a proper evidentiary hearing. To this end we vacate the judgment and remand the cause to the District Court for further proceedings.

Although Atlanta's commendable effort to effect desegregation is recognized, the District Court on remand must, of course, test the entire Atlanta plan by the considerations discussed in Watson v. City of Memphis, 373 U.S. 526, 529, 83 S.Ct. 1314, 1316, 10 L.Ed.2d 529; Goss v. Board of Education, 373 U.S. 683, 83 S.Ct. 1405, 10 L.Ed.2d 632; and Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, 377 U.S. 218, 84 S.Ct. 1226, 12 L.Ed.2d 256, decided subsequent to the District Court's approval of the plan. In Goss, supra, 373 U.S. at 689, 83 S.Ct. at 1409, we said:

'(W)e are not unmindful of the deep-rooted problems involved. Indeed, it was consideration for the multifarious local difficulties and 'variety of obstacles' which might arise in this transition that led this Court eight years ago to frame its mandate in Brown in such language as 'good faith compliance at the earliest practicable date' and 'all deliberate...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • United States v. Jefferson County Board of Education
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 9 Octubre 1967
    ...86 S.Ct. 224, 15 L.Ed.2d 187; Rogers v. Paul (1965) 382 U.S. 198, 86 S.Ct. 358, 15 L.Ed.2d 265. Similarly, in Calhoun v. Latimer (1964) 377 U.S. 263, 84 S.Ct. 1235, 12 L.Ed.2d 288, the Court had for consideration a desegregation plan of the Atlanta Board of Education. During the argument be......
  • Bradley v. Milliken
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 19 Noviembre 1973
    ...been significantly altered.\' Goss v. Board of Education, 373 U.S. 683, 689, 83 S.Ct. 1405, 10 L.Ed.2d 632. See Calhoun v. Latimer, 377 U.S. 263, 84 S.Ct. 1235, 12 L.Ed.2d 288. The burden on a school board today is to come forward with a plan that promises realistically to work, and promise......
  • Jones v. Alfred Mayer Co, 645
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 17 Junio 1968
    ...(closing of all integrated public schools). See also Rogers v. Paul, 382 U.S. 198, 86 S.Ct. 358, 15 L.Ed.2d 265; Calhoun v. Latimer, 377 U.S. 263, 84 S.Ct. 1235, 12 L.Ed.2d 288; Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401, 3 L.Ed.2d 6. My Brother HARLAN'S listing of some of the 'customs' pre......
  • JONES V. ALFRED H. MAYER CO.
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 17 Junio 1968
    ...Almond, 170 F.Supp. 331 (D.C.E.D.Va.1959) (closing of all integrated public schools). See also Rogers v. Paul, 382 U. S. 198; Calhoun v. Latimer, 377 U. S. 263; Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U. S. [Footnote 2/6] My Brother HARLAN's listing of some of the "customs" prevailing in the North at the time......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT