Newburg Area Council, Inc. v. Board of Education of Jefferson County, Kentucky, John L. Haycraft v. Board of Education of Louisville, Kentucky

510 F.2d 1358
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedApril 21, 1975
Docket73-1403, 73-1408
StatusPublished
Cited by37 cases

This text of 510 F.2d 1358 (Newburg Area Council, Inc. v. Board of Education of Jefferson County, Kentucky, John L. Haycraft v. Board of Education of Louisville, Kentucky) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Newburg Area Council, Inc. v. Board of Education of Jefferson County, Kentucky, John L. Haycraft v. Board of Education of Louisville, Kentucky, 510 F.2d 1358 (6th Cir. 1975).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

These consolidated school desegregation cases were originally before this *1359 Court in Newburg Area Council, Inc., et al., v. Board of Education of Jefferson County, Kentucky, et al., and John L. Haycraft et al. v. Board of Education of Louisville, Kentucky, et al., 489 F.2d 925 (6th Cir. 1973), in which it was held:

(1) That neither the Independent Louisville School District nor the Jefferson County School District was a unitary system, both operating dual school systems from which all vestiges of state-imposed segregation had not been eliminated; and (2) That all vestiges of state-imposed segregation must be eliminated within each school district in the county, state-created school district lines to impose no barrier in accomplishing such purpose.

The judgment of the district court, dismissing the action as to the Louisville and Jefferson County school districts, was reversed and the actions were remanded for further proceedings, with the statement that to accomplish the elimination of remaining vestiges of de jure segregation, “we do not require the use of any particular method nor approve in advance the use of any particular device.”

The petitions of the defendant School Boards for certiorari were granted and on July 25, 1974, the Supreme Court entered the following order:

The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. The judgments are vacated and the cases are remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for further consideration in light of Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 94 S.Ct. 3112, 41 L.Ed.2d 1069 (1974). Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Brennan, Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Marshall would grant certiorari and without briefing or oral argument affirm the judgments.

By this Court’s order of August 8, 1974, the parties were directed to file supplemental briefs addressed to all questions applicable to the reconsideration by this Court of its prior opinion and ruling of December 28, 1973. Thereafter, extensive briefs were filed by the parties and the actions were set down for hearing on oral argument on October 14, 1974.

After full reconsideration, pursuant to the order of remand of the Supreme Court and its ruling in Milliken as to inter-district remedies, we are of the opinion that our prior ruling was correct and that it should be and it is hereby reaffirmed.

At the outset, we construe the Supreme Court’s opinion in Bradley v. Milliken, 418 U.S. 717, 94 S.Ct. 3112, 41 L.Ed.2d 1069, 1974, and its order of remand in the present cases, as in no way requiring a reconsideration of our prior opinion insofar as it held that both the Louisville and Jefferson County school districts were operating dual school systems from which all vestiges of state-imposed segregation had not been eliminated as required by law.

Therefore, in this opinion, we address ourselves only to our prior holding that the district judge in approving or formulating a plan of desegregation for Jefferson County, Kentucky, would have the power to require that state-created school district lines could be disregarded. On this issue, we find that there are material and controlling distinctions between the facts of the present cases and the facts before the Supreme Court in Milliken, in which the court held that state-created district lines could not be disregarded in devising an appropriate desegregation plan for the City of Detroit only:

(1) A vital distinction between Milliken and the present cases is that in the former there was no evidence that the outlying school districts had committed acts of de jure segregation or that they were operating dual school systems. Exactly the opposite is true here since both the Louisville and Jefferson County School Districts have been expressly found by this Court to have failed to eliminate all vestiges of state-imposed segregation. Consequently, as contrasted with the outlying Michigan districts, they are guilty of maintaining dual school systems.

(2) In Milliken, the metropolitan remedy would have involved some 53 school *1360 districts spreading over three counties, while the present cases involve only two and possibly three districts in a single county. 1 Hence, the inter-district remedy in this case would not be likely extensively to disrupt and alter the structure of public education in Kentucky, or even in Jefferson County, nor require the creation of a vast new super school district, as may have resulted from the broad metropolitan remedy considered in Mil-liken.

(3) In Kentucky, the county is established as the basic educational unit of the state [Ky.Rev.Stat. § 160.010], and the state legislature has referred to the boundaries of school districts as “artificially drawn school district lines.” Ky. Rev.Stat. § 160.048(1). Statutes of this character were not in effect in Michigan and consequently were not considered by the Supreme Court in Milliken.

(4) In Milliken, the Supreme Court expressed some concern because of the serious administrative problems which could arise in Michigan if the Court should decree an inter-district remedy entailing the consolidation of a large number of separate school districts. In Kentucky, however, if the district court should find that a formal consolidation or merger of districts was required to effectuate an effective desegregation plan for the county as a whole, such administrative problems would to a large extent be obviated since the merger or consolidation in that state could be effectuated under the express provisions of a Kentucky statute. This statute authorizes the reconsolidation of school districts within a single county even without the consent of the county school board. Ky.Rev.Stat. § 160.041.

(5) A crucial difference between the present cases and Milliken is that school district lines in Kentucky have been ignored in the past for the purpose of aiding and implementing continued segregation. Such disregarding of school district lines continues to have an effect on racial imbalance in the county’s schools, particularly in the location of Atherton High School in the county and away from the core city of Louisville. For example, in pre-Brown days black high school students in the Jefferson County school district were sent to the black Central High School located in the Louisville school district. This was done because the county had no black high school, and it was done on a tuition basis paid by the county. While this action by itself might be insufficient to invoke the equitable power of the court, see

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

Related

Hampton v. Jefferson County Board of Education
72 F. Supp. 2d 753 (W.D. Kentucky, 1999)
Jenkins v. State of Missouri
807 F.2d 657 (Eighth Circuit, 1987)
Jenkins v. Missouri
807 F.2d 657 (Eighth Circuit, 1986)
Bronson v. BOARD OF EDUC. OF CITY SCHOOL DIST.
578 F. Supp. 1091 (S.D. Ohio, 1984)
Stotts v. Memphis Fire Department
679 F.2d 579 (Sixth Circuit, 1982)
Lee v. Lee County Board of Education
639 F.2d 1243 (Fifth Circuit, 1981)
United States v. City of Monroe
513 F. Supp. 375 (W.D. Louisiana, 1980)
Janice Adams and Jack Adams, Jr., Minors, by Jerrianne Adams, Their Natural Guardian and Next Friend, and Jerrianne Adams Catherine M. Neel and Camille A. Neel, Minors, by Catherine Neel, Their Natural Guardian and Next Friend, and Catherine Neel Mary Edington and Susan Edington, Minors, by Horace Edington, Their Natural Guardian and Next Friend, and Horace Edington, the Concerned Parents for Neighborhood Schools v. United States of America, Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, and Daniel L. Schlafly, Fredericke. Busse, Gordon L. Benson, Malcolm W. Martin, Mrs. Anita L. Bond, Mrs. Joycebowen, Henry M. Grich, Jr. (Secretary), Rev. James L. Cummings (President),mrs. Erma j.lawrence, Rev. Donald E. Mayer (Vice President), Lawrence Moser, Charlesharris, and Julius C. Dix, Benjamin M. Price, Robert W. Bernthal, David j.mahan, Charles Brasfield (School District Superintendents) and Robert E. Wentz(superintendent Ofschools), United States of America v. City of St. Louis, Janice Adams and Jack Adams, Jr., Minors, by Jerrianne Adams, Their Naturalguardian and Next Friend, and Jerrianne Adams Catherine M. Neel and Camille a.neel, Minors, by Catherine Neel, Their Natural Guardian and Next Friend, Andcatherineneel Mary Edington and Susan Edington, Minors, by Horace Edington, Theirnatural Guardian and Next Friend, and Horace Edington, the Concerned Parentsfor Neighborhood Schools, Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, and Daniel L. Schlafly, Fredericke. Busse, Gordon L. Benson, Malcolm W. Martin, Mrs. Anita L. Bond, Mrs. Joycebowen, Henry M. Grich, Jr. (Secretary), Rev. James L. Cummings (President),mrs. Erma j.lawrence, Rev. Donald E. Mayer (Vice President), Lawrence Moser, Charlesharris, and Julius C. Dix, Benjamin M. Price, Robert W. Bernthal, David j.mahan, Charles Brasfield (School District Superintendents) and Robert E. Wentz(superintendent Ofschools), Earline Caldwell, Lillie Caldwell, Denise Daniels, Dwane Daniels, Cedricwilliams, Stephanie Williams, Gloria Williams, Janis Hutcherson, Leehutcherson, Robert Smith, Eddie S. Willis and the National Association for Theadvancement of Coloredpeople v. Board of Education of the City of St. Louis and Daniel L. Schlafly, Fredericke. Busse, Gordon L. Benson, Malcolm W. Martin, Mrs. Anita L. Bond, Mrs. Joycebowen, Henry M. Grich, Jr. (Secretary), Rev. James L. Cummings (President),mrs. Erma j.lawrence, Rev. Donald E. Mayer (Vice President), Lawrence Moser, Charlesharris, and Julius C. Dix, Benjamin M. Price, Robert W. Bernthal, David j.mahan, Charles Brasfield (School District Superintendents) and Robert E. Wentz(superintendent Ofschools) and the State of Missouri, Arthur Mallory, Commissioner of Education of the Stateof Missouri, the State of Missouri Board of Education, Craton Liddell, a Minor, by Minnie Liddell, His Mother and Next Friend, Andminnie Liddell, Joanna Goldsby, a Minor, by Barbara Goldsby, Her Mother Andnext Friend, and Barbara Goldsby, Deborah Yarber, a Minor, by Samuel Yarber, Her Father Andnext Friend, and Samuel Yarber, Nathalie Moore, a Minor, by Louise Moore, Hermother and Next Friend, and Louise Moore, Rachelle Legrand, a Minor, by Loislegrand, Her Mother and Next Friend, and Lois Legrand, on Behalf of Themselvesand All Otherschool-Age Children and Their Parents Residing in the Metropolitan Schooldistrict of the City of St. Louis, Missouri v. Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, and Daniel L. Schlafly, Fredericke. Busse, Gordon L. Benson, Malcolm W. Martin, Mrs. Anita L. Bond, Mrs. Joycebowen, Henry M. Grich, Jr. (Secretary), Rev. James L. Cummings (President),mrs. Erma j.lawrence, Rev. Donald E. Mayer (Vice President), Lawrence Moser, Charlesharris, and Julius C. Dix, Benjamin M. Price, Robert W. Bernthal, David j.mahan, Charles Brasfield (School District Superintendents) and Robert E. Wentz(superintendent Ofschools), and the State of Missouri, Arthur Mallory, Commissioner of Education of the Stateof Missouri, the State of Missouri Board of Education, City of St. Louis v. United States of America, Board of Education of the City of St. Louis and Daniel L. Schlafly, Fredericke. Busse, Gordon L. Benson, Malcolm W. Martin, Mrs. Anita L. Bond, Mrs. Joycebowen, Henry M. Grich, Jr. (Secretary), Rev. James L. Cummings (President),mrs. Erma j.lawrence, Rev. Donald E. Mayer (Vice President), Lawrence Moser, Charlesharris, and Julius C. Dix, Benjamin M. Price, Robert W. Bernthal, David j.mahan, Charles Brasfield (School District Superintendents) and Robert E. Wentz(superintendent Ofschools)
620 F.2d 1277 (Eighth Circuit, 1980)
Adams v. United States
620 F.2d 1277 (Eighth Circuit, 1980)
Haycraft v. Hollenbach
606 F.2d 128 (Sixth Circuit, 1979)
Haycraft v. Hollenbach, III
606 F.2d 128 (Sixth Circuit, 1979)
Morrilton School District No. 32 v. United States
606 F.2d 222 (Eighth Circuit, 1979)
Geier v. University of Tennessee
597 F.2d 1056 (Sixth Circuit, 1979)
Carroll v. Board of Education
561 F.2d 1 (Sixth Circuit, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
510 F.2d 1358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newburg-area-council-inc-v-board-of-education-of-jefferson-county-ca6-1975.