Moore v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

Supreme Court

Moore v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

402 U.S. 47, 91 S. Ct. 1292, 28 L. Ed. 2d 590, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 56

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedApril 20, 1971

Docket444

StatusPublished

Cited by83 cases

This text of 402 U.S. 47 (Moore v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moore v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 47, 91 S. Ct. 1292, 28 L. Ed. 2d 590, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 56 (1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellants seek review of the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina declaring a portion of the North Carolina anti-busing statute unconstitutional, and enjoining its enforcement. It is a companion case to No. 498, North Carolina State Board of Education v. Swann, ante, p. 43. We postponed decision on the question of jurisdiction, 400 U. S. 803 (1970), and after hearing on the merits we now dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

At the hearing both parties argued to the three-judge court that the anti-busing law was constitutional and urged that the order of the District Court adopting the Finger plan should be set aside. We are thus confronted *48 with the anomaly that both litigants desire precisely the same result, namely a holding that the anti-busing statute is constitutional. There is, therefore, no case or controversy within the meaning of Art. Ill of the Constitution. Muskrat v. United States, 219 U. S. 346 (1911). Additionally, since neither party sought an injunction to restrain a state officer from enforcing a state statute alleged to be unconstitutional, 28 U. S. C. § 2281, this is not an appeal from “any civil action, suit or proceeding required ... to be heard ... by a district court of three judges,” 28 U. S. C. § 1253, and hence no direct appeal to this Court is available.

Dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Appellants seek review of the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina declaring a portion of the North Carolina anti-busing statute unconstitutional, and enjoining its enforcement. It is a companion case to No. 498, North Carolina State Board of Education v. Swann, ante, p. 43. We postponed decision on the question of jurisdiction, 400 U. S. 803 (1970), and after hearing on the merits we now dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

At the hearing both parties argued to the three-judge court that the anti-busing law was constitutional and urged that the order of the District Court adopting the Finger plan should be set aside. We are thus confronted *48 with the anomaly that both litigants desire precisely the same result, namely a holding that the anti-busing statute is constitutional. There is, therefore, no case or controversy within the meaning of Art. Ill of the Constitution. Muskrat v. United States, 219 U. S. 346 (1911). Additionally, since neither party sought an injunction to restrain a state officer from enforcing a state statute alleged to be unconstitutional, 28 U. S. C. § 2281, this is not an appeal from “any civil action, suit or proceeding required ... to be heard ... by a district court of three judges,” 28 U. S. C. § 1253, and hence no direct appeal to this Court is available.

Dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

402 U.S. 47, 91 S. Ct. 1292, 28 L. Ed. 2d 590, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 56, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-charlotte-mecklenburg-board-of-education-scotus-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack