Johnson v. Board of Ed. of Chicago
457 U.S. 52
SCOTUS
1982
Check Treatment

*1 52 OF THE et al. v. BOARD EDUCATION OF

JOHNSON OF CHICAGO CITY et al. 7, June 81-1097. Decided

No.

Per Curiam. by petitioners challenging

This case commenced city Education of the by the Board of voluntary adoption of racial enrollment at two Chicago that the alleged designed quotas, purportedly “white were unlawful because resulted they arrest flight,” the denial of admission to those schools of some black appli- but white upheld cants The District Court applicants. F. 2d 504 and the Court of affirmed. (CA7 1979). (1980), 448 U. S. granted the case “for then vacated and remanded further consideration in light of the subsequent described in by respond- of mootness filed was the ents.” 449 U. S. 915 That development United States v. of a consent in a entry decree related (ND Ill.), 80-C-5124 *2 Chicago, Board of of a agreed of Education to develop which the Board the Board’s announcement systemwide integration of the racial at the two quotas that it had abandoned use to the District The remanded Court 645 F. of mootness. 2d Court to consider the (1981). the Board had court, finding readopted That that further evidence that taking the concluded without quotas, The Court of agreeing was not moot. Appeals, the challenge moot and the doctrine of relying upon that the case was not affirmed without the con- case, reconsidering the law of the to the of the subse- light racial challenge stitutional the Board eliminated or re- argued quent effects of the F. 2d any discriminatory quotas. duced their for request have now renewed review. not the case is with the Court not under- does subsequent development

moot and that the the racial court’s decision original upholding quo- mine that we would However, tas. if we certiorari grant since were matter, consider the constitutional challenge original well relevant to that the be subsequent development might the was for that reason that we vacated consideration. It in light Court of for further consideration Appeals’ judgment No additional evidence development. the subsequent nor the District Court taken and therefore neither the record develop- reflect the Appeals opinions subsequent Court the judgment, ment. We therefore vacate grant matter be and remand the case with direction that in the District consolidated with the ongoing proceeding Chicago, in United v. Board States chal- 80-C-5124, so that court decide petitioners’ we Because a factual record. complete basis of lenge in this vacated judgments have Appeals’ either constrain law of the case does not doctrine appeal subsequently or, should an District Court Appeals. taken, Court of

It is so ordered. petition for a writ of Brennan Justice argument. for oral set the case certiorari and part in the consideration or deci- took White Justice of this ease. sion with whom Justice Marshall Rehnquist, Justice dissenting.

joins, §2106 provides Supreme “[t]he Title 28 U. S. C. *3 modify, may affirm, vacate, set aside or reverse . . Court. lawfully brought any judgment, of a court decree, or order many years practice in- . . over it . .” Our for review before authority require- implicit in is a this dicates acting specify as our reasons for we do. Here that we ment departs implicit requirement. from The ulti- the Court judgment disposition is of the the case the vacation mate Appeals so that this case and a remand the Court proceeding in the District Court with another consolidated reading A of Illinois. for the Northern District per vaguely suggests is dissat- curiam that the Court Court’s pur- opinion which it isfied with the portedly to is substantive made reviews, opinion in or whole whether that part. Nothing was correct or incorrect any suggests to me

in the us record before why properly more exer- reason we should assume a function by by Court, cised the District pending order consolidation of this case with another action disposed I District But if were Court. even by propriety disposition Court, as to of the now made opinion hope something I nature of an would in the accompany explaining for the reasons action makes, disposition. per curiam no effort Since Court’s explanation, I at such dissent.