Sealy v. Department of Public Instruction of Pennsylvania

• Decision Date: 05 February 1958
• Docket Number: No. 12438.,12438.
• Citation: 252 F.2d 898
• Parties: John A. SEALY, Jr., et al., Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF PENNSYLVANIA et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

252 F.2d 898 (1958)

John A. SEALY, Jr., et al., Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF PENNSYLVANIA et al.

No. 12438.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued January 24, 1958.

Decided February 5, 1958.

As Amended March 14, 1958.

Joseph A. McNeal, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellants.

Howard M. Lutz, Media, Pa., for School Dist. of Darby Tp., Board of School Directors of School Dist. of Darby Tp., and Donald L. Snively, Superintendent of Schools.

Stephen B. Narin, Philadelphia, Pa., for Dr. Charles H. Boehm, Supt. of Public Instruction, Dept. of Public Instruction of Pennsylvania, and Pennsylvania State Council of Education.

George F. Baer Appel, Philadelphia, Pa., for State Public School Building Authority of Pennsylvania.

Before BIGGS, Chief Judge, KALODNER, Circuit Judge, and WRIGHT, District Judge.

BIGGS, Chief Judge.

The plaintiffs, minor Negro children, by their parents as guardians ad litem, and the parents themselves, all residents of Darby Township, Delaware County, Pennsylvania, brought suit in the court below, invoking jurisdiction under Sections 1331 and 1343, Title 28 U.S.C., under Sections 1981 and 1983, 42 U.S. C.A., and under the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs allege that because they are Negroes they have been discriminated against as to the location of a new junior high school which the defendants, the Department of Public Instruction of Pennsylvania, the Superintendent of Public Instruction of Pennsylvania, the Board of School Directors of Delaware County, the Delaware County Superintendent of Schools, the Board of School Directors of Darby Township, and the individuals comprising these authorities, have decided to locate in the upper or northern segment of Darby Township instead of in its lower or southern segment, the Township being comprised of two non-contiguous areas divided by certain boroughs of Delaware County.

The plaintiffs allege that the "Delaware County Plan", 24 P.S.Pa. 2-261 to 2-264, proposed by the school authorities referred to and their individual members has resulted in a practical segregation of Negro students, residents of Wards 1 and 2, constituting the lower or southern segment of Darby Township, by electing to place the new junior high school in Wards 3, 4 and 5, constituting the upper or northern segment of Darby Township on land already purchased, despite the fact that the present or old junior high school is now situated in the lower or southern segment of the Township and has been so situated for many years. The result, the plaintiffs allege, will be to cause Negro students to be transported two and a half miles by bus or other conveyance across contiguous boroughs, past high schools as distinguished from junior high schools, despite the fact the Negro population of Darby Township is situated largely in its lower or southern segment, thus effecting by gerrymandering a discriminatory school system based on segregation by race.

The prayers of the complaint and the amendments thereto seek to enjoin the building of the proposed new junior high school in the upper or northern segment of Darby Township and the effecting of the Delaware County Plan.

Some of the defendants in their answers first sought the interposition of a three-judge statutory court to dispose of the case pursuant to the provisions of Sections 2282 and 2284, 28 U.S.C., apparently because of the view that the plaintiffs were seeking to test the constitutionality of Pennsylvania statutes, but these prayers were not pressed and the case was heard below by a court comprised by a single judge. It appears that the constitutionality of the statutes of Pennsylvania is not attacked by the plaintiffs but rather the method in which the statutes were or are being applied by the school authorities. We agree that the case was one to be heard by a single judge. Mere attack on regulations or method of enforcement of a statute is not sufficient to justify the interposition of a three-judge court. Ex parte Bransford, 1939, 310 U.S. 354, 60 S.Ct. 947, 84 L.Ed. 1249, William Jameson & Co. v. Morgenthau, 1938, 307 U.S. 171, 59 S.Ct. 804, 83 L.Ed. 1189.

After answers were filed extensive testimony was taken on hearings for the preliminary and final injunctive relief sought by the plaintiffs. The court below handed down an opinion on August 27, 1957, 159 F.Supp. 561. It appears from the opinion and the findings of fact that the court was of the view that the relief sought by the plaintiffs was "multiple" specifically that the relief sought by the plaintiffs to enjoin the Board of School Directors of Darby Township and the other defendants from taking any action or refraining from taking any action contemplated or necessary in connection with the conveyance of land, the leasing thereof, the location, construction, erection and financing of the new junior high school in the upper or northern segment of Darby Township, was unrelated to other relief sought by the plaintiffs which related primarily to the administrative units and attendance areas in Delaware County under the Delaware County Plan. The court below, making reference to Rule 54(b), Fed....