Northcross v. Board of Education of Memphis, Tennessee City Schools

Decision Date09 March 1970
Docket NumberNo. 1136,1136
Citation90 S.Ct. 891,397 U.S. 232,25 L.Ed.2d 246
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Jack Greenberg and James M. Nabrit III, for petitioners.

Jack Petree, for respondents.


In 1966 the District Court for the Western District of Tennessee approved a plan of respondent Board of Education for the desegregation of the Memphis school system. In July 1968 petitioners made a motion that the court order the Board to adopt a new plan prepared with the assistance of the Title IV Center of the University of Tennessee. The Center is funded by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The 1966 plan permitted unrestricted free transfers, and petitioners desired a plan without such a provision, and one that would also provide among other things for complete faculty desegregation. The District Court denied the motion as filed but on May 15, 1969, in an unreported opinion, directed respondent Board to file a revised plan which would incorporate the existing plan (as respondent proposed during the hearing to supplement it), and which also would contain a modified transfer provision, a provision for the appointment of a Director of Desegregation charged with responsibility to devise ways and means 'of assisting the Board in its affirmative duty to convert to a unitary system in which racial discrimination will be eliminated root and branch,' and provision for faculty desegregation. The court also directed that, prior to January 1, 1970, the Board file a map of proposed revised zone boundary lines and enrollment figures by race within the revised zones to enable the court then to 'reconsider the adequacy of the transfer plan.' The District Court expressly found that such further steps were necessary because, although the respondent Board 'has acted in good faith,' 'the existing and proposed (supplemental) plans do not have real prospects for dismantling the state-imposed dual system at the 'earliest practicable date."

Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In June 1969 they filed a Motion for Summary Reversal and on November 3, 1969, after this Court's decision in Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19, 90 S.Ct. 29, 24 L.Ed.2d 19 (1969), a motion to require adoption of a unitary system now. Both motions were denied on December 19, 1969, and the case was remanded to the District Court; the Court of Appeals stated that action on its part would be premature 'until the United States District Court has had submitted to it the ordered plan, and has had opportunity to consider and act upon it.'

Petitioners thereupon filed in the Court of Appeals a motion for injunction pending certiorari which, in reliance upon Alexander v. Holmes County Board, sought an injunction requiring respondent Board 'to prepare and file on or before January 5, 1970, in addition to the adjusted zone lines it is presently required to file, a plan for the operation of the City of Memphis public schools as a unitary system during the current 1969—70 school year.' The motion was denied on January 12, 1970, on the ground that Alexander v. Holmes County Board was inapplicable to the case because '(the Court of Appeals is) satisfied that the respondent Board of Education of Memphis is not now operating a 'dual school system' and has, subject to complying with the present commands of the District Judge, converted its pre-Brown dual system into a unitary system 'within which no person is to be effectively excluded because of race or color."

Petitioners, on January 30, 1970, filed in this Court a petition for certiorari and a motion for injunction pending certiorari 'requiring the preparation, with the assistance of H.E.W. or the H.E.W. funded University of Tennessee Title IV Center, of a plan of complete pupil and faculty integration affecting all phases of the operations of the Memphis public school system, for implementation during the 1969—70 school year in conformity with * * * Alexander v. Holmes County Bd. * * *.'

The petition for certiorari is branted. We hold that the Court of Appeals erred in the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • May 26, 1970
    ...19, 20, 90 S.Ct. 29, 30, 24 L.Ed.2d 19 (1969). This definition, as the Chief Justice noted in Northcross v. Board of Ed. of Memphis, 397 U.S. 232, 90 S.Ct. 891, 893, 25 L.Ed.2d 246 (1970), leaves open practical problems, "including whether, as a constitutional matter, any particular racial ......
  • Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 6, 1978
    ...v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971); Northcross v. City of Memphis Board of Education, 397 U.S. 232, 90 S.Ct. 891, 25 L.Ed.2d 246 (1970); Carter v. West Feliciana Parish School Board, 396 U.S. 226, 90 S.Ct. 467, 24 L.Ed.2d 382 (1969)......
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • December 18, 1970
    ...ideal racial balance is not required by decisions of the Supreme Court. See North-cross v. Memphis City Schools Board of Education, supra 397 U.S. 232 at 237, 90 S.Ct. 891, 25 L.Ed.2d 246 (C. J. Burger's concurrence); Deal v. Cincinnati Board of Education, supra, 419 F.2d 1387; Beckett v. S......
  • Bradley v. School Board of City of Richmond, Va., 71-1774.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • November 29, 1972
    ...Quoting from the language of Chief Justice Burger in his concurring opinion in Northcross v. Board of Education of Memphis, Tenn. City Schools, (1970) 397 U.S. 232, 237, 90 S.Ct. 891, 25 L.Ed.2d 426, the District Court observed that there are still practical problems to be determined, not t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • The Supreme Court of the United States, 1969-1970
    • United States
    • Political Research Quarterly No. 23-4, December 1970
    • December 1, 1970
    ...should operate only unitary systems. In a per curiam decision, Northcross v. Board of Education of the Memphis, Tennessee City Schools (397 U.S. 232; 90 S. Ct. 891 ) , the Court held that thestate-imposed dual system of schools in Memphis had not been converted into aunitary system and orde......

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