*1 WISDOM, Before COLEMAN Judges. SIMPSON, Circuit *2 388 upon Judge: quirements the district court our of
SIMPSON, Circuit remand. Following ac remand the limited the district court to Our directions 15, order April 1970 by our complished prior appeal of upon from the remand case, Henry, desegregation Henry matter, Munic- v. Clarksdale Separate Municipal et v. Clarksdale al. 1969, ipal District, Separate Cir. School 5 1970, Cir., 425 District, al., 5 et School (Clarksdale I) F.2d were as 409 682 II) district (Clarksdale F.2d 698 follows: hearing upon the a conducted “ * * * excep the bur- Board bears Report and the Special Master’s 8, taking May An den of corrective action. April and on on 24 tions thereto findings produce de- effective segregated faculties, staff, should fact and 1970, of its entered facilities, a law in memorandum conclusions transportation, sup and school activities Thereafter order. and along (such athletics) in- plemental filed in this Court record was tegrated If student bodies. there received have been further briefs all-Negro schools, only court-imposed parties still or under a Negroes briefing schedule, small enrolled under the fraction of accelerated schools, Sing or no in- white tegration substantial in Part procedures III detailed Munic faculties and school (Singleton v. Jackson III leton ipal Separate then, law, District, 1969, activities as a matter of Cir. 5 School existing plan 2, F.R.App. 1211). fails meet constitu- Rule 419 F.2d See granted tional standards established Under extensions Proc. companion urgent Green and its requests cases. of the redrawing board should consider its at- parties with the the last brief was filed incorporat- 22, boundaries, tendance-zone July The case is dis on 1970. Clerk ing majority-to-minority extraordinary posed transfer of as matter an closing all-Negro provision plan, in its record briefs. consideration of the Singleton schools, consolidating pairing III, 2, supra, F.R. and Rule taking schools, rotating principals, and A.P. other measures to the defects overcome opening of the 1970-71 present system. to its at- As than month term is less a short or zones, tendance zone boundaries already In order meet the future. designed patterns feeder or used imposed by Alexand- overdue deadlines segregation perpetuate promote or er,1 Singleton supra, III, and Carter2 discontinued, shall be zone and such complete so this dis- conversion of redrawn, lines shall be feas- wherever 3 unitary system may trict to ible, desegregation or maximize beginning accomplished by the new segregation. eliminate zone bound- No term, dispatch. Time we must act with patterns aries feeder main- require prompt essentially segregated action tain limitations will what is stringent school structure Brax- shall be used. under the Board 430, 1689, County 391 U.S. 88 20 L.Ed.2d Board S.Ct. 1. Alexander v. Holmes (391 435, 1689, Education, 19, 29, U.S. 88 20 716 S.Ct. 90 24 396 U.S. S.Ct. 716) (1966). L.Ed.2d Ellis v. further see L.Ed.2d 19 Instruction, of Public Board, 2. v. West Feliciana School Carter County, Florida, 1970, 423 Cir. 608, L.Ed.2d 396 U.S. S.Ct. 203, 204, composition student (1970). appeal. bodies is involved in this recognized compact 3. elimi- Of the six criteria for trans- and furnishes no nating duality portation the racial identification schools: Elimination as such. composition bodies, faculty, faculty, staff, of student activi- extra-curricular accomplished by staff, transportation, extra-curricular ac- ties and facilties was facilities, January tivities and see Green v. order district court’s County, 1968, School Board of New Kent May 8, 1970, from which this cisión appeal Instruction of Public v. Board ton taken, Special F. confirmed County, M.D.Fla.1967.” Duval report adopted Master’s the school 2d at 689. plan proposed was error it. This directions court’s The district under instructions on our remand him: Special referred Master *3 I. develop aiding the court to of “the task Special educator, The Master was an ap- plan desegregation a new student lawyer, testimony not a but his indicates grades the Clarks- plicable to all 12 interpreted that he read and Ellis4 to Dis- Municipal Separate School dale permit disregard complete of our earlier year trict, the school effective express requirements respect with to the there- beginning September and 1970 elementary schools of the Clarksdale uni- plan produce a must after. Said Municipal School District. The district system child tary no in which school judge gave weight also undue to EUis attending effectively excluded (perhaps misapprehended because he color; or of his race school because significance findings, of Master’s see plan and, must constitutional, the to be infra), 6, footnote result that solely provide for no attended schools he failed to our follow clear directions to formerly Negro all- by no students and him in Clarksdale I as well as the con- by a small attended white schools requirement stitutional already clearly is, students; Negro number of present in explicated by case or there must not ‘white’ schools be Supreme Court in Green and further ‘Negro’ schools, just schools”. but clarified in by the interim several de- by cisions by were clear. and These directions the Su- preme Court.5 by report Special his But the Master by The Special recommended completely them with failed follow 6 implement Master desegregation did elementary spect schools junior high the senior by and schools the tables 3 district. See column proposing to make the former Clarksdale 11, infra. collected footnote junior high and senior (formerly schools hearing judge single held a all white) high The district into a senior exceptions Special report, on the Master’s school for the district, by pro- entire and argument posing de- Higgins thereon. His junior thereto make and and senior weight Instruction plan, prepared v. Board of Public such 4. Ellis to the HEW 1970, County, Florida, by experts 423 working 5 Cir. a team of three more continuously days. F.2d 203. less for 7 weight given Special the so-called Master’s following: Among Adams others are Beport erroneous, rep- since it did not 181; 1968, Mathews, 403 F.2d 5 v. Cir. findings testimony resent of fact on sworn Separate v. Indianola States United by and evidence considered the Master. 1969, District, F.2d 410 Cir. 5 report gov- of such a master is not City Monroe, 626; v. Andrews erned Buie 53. He was a ex- school 1017; Alexander pert gathered spoke who information and 1; County, supra, Car- footnote Holmes personnel authorities, pa- to school 2; supra, Feliciana, footnote v. West ter trons of the district. His function did Hinds United States performed by not differ from that Education, F.2d 852. Cir. HEW team. Faced as the court was May intransigent 6. The district court’s Board, appoint- with an appoint- Special independent Master was study that the expert *4 elementary change respect the square of four whose boundaries miles except occur schools of would city of are limits coterminous with the employed. racial the nomenclature Clarksdale, containing popula- a school attending makeup pupils of the several 5300, roughly tion of 3169 blacks about elementary actly ex- schools would continue whites, formerly in housed 2106 as before. The student bodies elementary schools, junior seven three Heidelberg, Kirkpatrick and Oakhurst high high schools. and two senior elementary schools would continue points, (and At its city) the widest the district white, grades serving 6, from 1 to about 2 miles north measures neighborhoods same under the former south 4 and about miles east to west. Similarly, Oliver, plan. school board place properly Ellis has its it is when Hall, Myrtle Riverton, T. and Booker applied,8 dis- reliance the but Washington elementary schools would totally judge trict in the situation here body, continue all in student each black ignores strong key Ellis, real the the Negro serving im- students from its 7, page caveat of footnote F.2d 423 mediate environs.7 408: change the sole as to note elementary adoption a schools is case, it “7. Under the facts of this majority-minority policy. transfer We happens choice school board’s approve provision without reserva- neighborhood assignment system of a tion and direct it be continued. Orange adequate is County to convert However, much, much more must ac- system a a school from dual to complished by September, 1970 unitary system. This decision does opening school date in order to convert preclude employment dif- unitary system. into district a fering assignment methods in other bring unitary school approved districts about result in achieved and systems. many Instruction, in There are variables Ellis Public v. assignment approach County, Florida, supra, repre- student bring necessary unitary appraisal about sented this Court’s of the maxi- systems. The accomplished mum answer each case that could be in con- here, verting unitary system turns analysis, a under the final including on all Orange County, facts those in that case. facts peculiar Florida, particular countywide is a includ- district system.” ing heavily (Emphasis supplied) populated metropolitan a panel July strongly orginal plan 8. 7. This on 14 relied Under school board 7 West, Hightower, etc., Myrtle attending on Elllis in et al. v. whites were Hall where- etc., 552, Murphy’s al., 1970, plan 5 F.2d in et Cir. 430 Dr. indicates 5 at- will volving Georgia, County, plan the Fulton tend. The school board had 2 whites system corporate attending Oliver, limits outside the of At and 463 blacks whereas metropolitan lanta, part plan Murphy’s Atlanta. but a Dr. indicates whites 415 blacks will attend Oliver.
391 makeup physical ‘In view of the situation found The size and County, mark- Kent New where there is no here under consideration Monroe, segregation, City residential the elimina- edly that of resemble plan recent- tion of the dual school Louisiana, was whose Andrews, “unitary, ly et non- establishment of reviewed this Court 1970, readily al., system” City racial could be Monroe, et 5 Cir. al. larger city achieved with a minimum of admin- Monroe is 425 F.2d 11,000, difficulty population istrative means of of about with a school * * * geographical zoning up approximately white [How- made geographical pupils, pupils ever] with twelve formula is not black ’ * * * high universally schools, junior appropriate. three high schools. schools and three senior County Green Board of School New pattern white But of all and all black 1968, 430, Kent 391 U.S. neighborhoods physical barriers 6, 1689, n. 88 S.Ct. n. L.Ed. railways, highways form of and riv- (quoting 2d 716 from Bowman v. noting Andrews, In after ers similar. Board, Ellis the district “convinced 326, concurring opinion). constitu- the school board’s tionally permissible”, quoted from we “In this case, whether the School Ellis and continued: ‘neighborhood’ plan is Board’s called *5 plan zoning geographical plan, it or a “However, reject do not we system. does not the dual disestablish solely plan on School Board’s Orange County system The encom- ground that does not fit the it passed areas, both rural and urban County ‘neighborhood’ a definition of large comprised area, a land had a total system. if, presently con- Even schools, of 98 and had a racial ratio of neighbor- plan stituted the true were a approximately per students 82 cent reject it plan, hood would it because we per white —18 cent black. The Mon- unitary system. a fails establish City system, hand, roe on the other Orange County say that a does not encompasses only, an urban area com- ‘neighborhood’ system student as- prises relatively area, a small land has signment unitary system. per a se is schools, a total of 18 and has County contrary, Orange To the care- approxi- racial ratio of students fully pointed out:” mately per per cent white —49 Ellis, supra, Here footnote 7 of cent black. In view of these circum- quoted entirety. The Andrews stances, its reject facially we invalid court continued: plan, the School Board’s under which per close to 85 cent of the black ele- “The School Board contends ada- mentary students would to at- continue mantly system that a dual is eliminated traditionally tend schools, four black by plan because the zone were lines (Lincoln two of which remain all-black regard geographically drawn without Clark) and and two of which remain race the students within those nearly (Carver Berg all-black and system lines. such While of student Jones). The elementary two schools assignment may be less offensive than which would remain all-black would intentionally segregates one which per alone house about 66 cent of the students, necessarily it does follow approximately 3000 black unitary system. it The creates Furthermore, plan students. pro- Supreme has it made clear vides for Carroll and Jr. Carroll Sr. school boards cannot avoid High (traditionally black) Schools sponsibility unitary system to create a approximately per house cent of simply by resorting to non-discrimina-
tory, secondary zoning geographical black such students where zoning would be system, ineffective: while a ratio of student about by superimposing pairing to 1 white maintained achieved 10 black grades existing
those schools.”
boundaries.
zone
plan
The HEW
reverses the uses
disposition in
a limit-
Andrews was
Hig-
junior-senior
which Clarksdale
and
study
ed
and find-
remand for further
gins
formerly
put:
would be
white
ings by
the district court as to
HEW
high
junior
and
senior
plan
originally
plan
adopt-
and the board
eitywide
would be combined to form a
(and
ed
the district court
later er-
junior high school, grades
8;
and
roneously
discarded
on
lower court
(now
Higgins
junior
intervening
the basis of the
decisions
Orange County,
senior)
supra,
Ellis v.
would be combined with Oliver
Bivins v. Bibb
tion,
Elementary
of Educa-
(across
street) to form
97).
424 F.2d
citywide
high
composed
senior
grades
through
12. Oliver Ele-
Here
in other
recent cases follow-
grade
mentary
ninth
would handle the
ing the tenor of Alexander v. Holmes
and the other
at
three would
housed
supra,
footnote
and Carter
Hig-
buildings
(supra,
2)
adjacent
West
the two
Feliciana
footnote
necessary
gins
to shift the
from the
burden
complex.
standpoint
converting
of time for
to a
restructuring
grades
unitary
litiga-
from a
status
elementary level is as follows:
unitary operation
tion to a status of
pending litigation.
previous
Students*
under
served
Grades
assignments
proposal
HEW
findings by
the court below as to
Hall
Oliver, Myrtle
1-2
Hall
Myrtle
proposed
unsoundness
Oakhurst
validity
HEW would be of doubtful
Hall
Oak-
4-6
Myrtle
Oakhurst
standing in
In
isolation.
the context
hurst
present they
here
clearly,
erroneous.
Higgins-
(part of
Oliver
*6
The district court was faced
Complex;
Oliver
imperative,
require-
constitutional
ele-
closed
school)
mentary
system
ment that this school
be converted
unitary system.
ato
plan proposed
Oakhurst and Myrtle
3-6
Junior
Riverton
(grade
only);
High (converted
Hall
by HEW,
only plan
as the
in existence
grades 3-6
Oliver
elementary
promising
now”,
put
“work
must be
school)
beginning
into effect
Septem-
as of the
Heidelberg,
Heidelberg
Kirkpat-
3-4
ber of
year.
the 1970-71 school
With
and Riverton
rick
ele-
plan
operation,
the district court
mentary
may proceed
to consider alterations and
Heidelberg,
Kirkpat-
5-6
Kirkpatrick
rick
ele-
it,
Riverton
they
amendments to
to the extent that
mentary
represent forward,
steps.10
not backward
Heidelberg,
1-2
Kirkpat-
Riverton
plan integration
Under the HEW
of six
rick and Riverton ele-
elementary
the seven
schools
mentary
CA 26453
example,
9. For
Singleton III,
instance,
addition to
10. For
whether
the Clarksdale
supra,
see
High
Charles v.
complex
ultimately
Ascension Parish
Junior-Senior
Board,
1969,
656;
School
single
5 Cir.
high
Hig-
F.2d
school and the former
Board,
gins
Williams v. Iberville
High
Parish
complex
School
Junior-Senior
is ulti-
1969,
161;
5 Cir.
mately
single
High
F.2d
Jones v. Cad
Junior
School or
Board,
1970,
do Parish School
reversed, may
5 Cir.
functions are
well be
313; Boykins
421 F.2d
v. Fairfield Board
left
to the School Board to determine.
Education,
1330;
Also,
rearrangements
5 Cir.
between
United States v.
clustered,
buildings
Board of Education of
zoned or
as to which
Baldwin
grades may
423 F.2d
serve which
be undertaken.
point
changes
is that
which tend to
permit
desegregation
lessened
will not be
permitted.
margin gives
Murphy’s plan.11
The table set out
under Dr.
composition
figures
comparison
Ap-
the racial
are
taken from the
pendix
plaintiffs-appellants’ brief,
for the eleven schools
student bodies
apparently
under the
derived from reliable
original plan,
accuracy
question-
Board’s
under
HEW sources. Their
is not
*7
May
toward
order directed
Variance
its
brief.
ed in the district’s
Concededly
plan.
is not
by
differences
HEW
time
totals is caused
collecting
advantage
perfect,
paramount
figures.
its one
but
of the
outstrips
each
and overcomes
11 demon-
in footnote
the tables
As
by the district
at it
criticisms leveled
plan accomplishes
strate,
sub-
the HEW
accomplishes desegregation
judge:
it
desegregation
all of
stantial
Separate
Municipal
School
the Clarksdale
exception
of the
only plan
extant
now
District. As
Elementary
Washington
T.
Booker
adoption
goal,
approaching
even
roughly
Negro
who
children
present
is a must.
for the
at least
Washington.
presently
These
attend
represent
children
about 16%—17%
system,
Negro pupils in the
about
all the
objections
children
as to
the blacks
27%—28%
being required
walk much as two
to
grades.
maps
in evi-
Examination of
average
opposed
of 0.5
miles as
to an
Washing-
suggests
for
dence
the reason
having
heretofore,
trav
miles
and of
being
a more
location
ton
difficult
erse natural or man-made barriers
Washington
desegregate pupilwise. The
grade
division
the claim
a 2-2-2
by
attendance
is circumscribed
area
a 1-6
than
somehow less desirable
city
rather formidable boundaries:
objections
division,
fail.
south,
the north-south rail-
limits
crossing highways are
distance and
Highway
east,
to the
road line
by
said Clarks
covered what we have
to the
north and the
River
Sunflower
dale, I, Indianola, supra, United States
Additionally,
west.
between the
Municipal Separate
Greenwood
highway
heavily in-
the area is
and the
1086;
District,
1969,
An
5 Cir.
406 F.2d
along the north-south rail-
dustrialized
thony, et
v. Marshall
al.
way
it
All of these factors make
tracks.
1287;
Education,
409 F.2d
more difficult
Washington
children to enter the
Instruction,
Board of Public
Duval Coun
go
from the east
out
area
or
ty,
Braxton,
Fla.,
402 F.2d
Cir.
Study
maps
of it to the east.
of the
in-
900, and
cases. Bar
numerous other
dicates
into
that access
out of the
prevent
riers
segregation
enforced
which did
may
area to the
and west
north
be had
past
will not be held
by using
paral-
Sunflower Avenue which
prevent
unitary sys
full
conversion
lels the
east
river to the
of it. With
tem.
pupils using
Washington
this route the
objection
may
respect
possibly
With
of lack
be combined into the
Riverton-Oakhurst-Myrtle
Hall cluster.
breakup of
“articulation” caused
arrangement may
Some other
be better.
grade composition
or more
between two
We leave this for determination
zoning
clustering,
schools under
leadership
district court under the
required
sufficient to cite the breakdown
help
HEW,
board and
with the
Mississippi
in a few of the southern
required
the bi-racial committee
here-
school districts
our con-
covered
under,
During
infra.
the first semester
year
reported
solidated cases
as United States
*8
of the
1970-71
studies as to
al.,
Board,
et
Hinds
School
Washington
the ultimate use of
and the
Munic-
852: Canton
Negro
presently assigned
children
there
3-3-1-5;
ipal Separate District,
Colum-
high priority
be undertaken
should
as a
District,
Separate
Municipal
bia
project
may
so that these children
start
2-3-2-5;
County, 4-4-4,
receiving
4-
completely
Lawrence
benefits of a
in-
tegrated
beginning
5-3;
Municipal Separate
education
Dis-
Meridian
coming
second semester of the
trict, 6-1-2-3;
Special Munic-
Natchez
year.
1-1-2-2-3-4;
District,
ipal Separate
4-4-4;
District,
Pike
given
North
Consolidated
We have
careful attention
3-3-3-3,
Quitman
District,
to the criticisms of the
in
district court
Consolidated
District,
court
the orders of the district
Municipal Separate
district
and Yazoo
fare
are affirmed.
will
2-1-2-1-3-3.12
indicated.
districts
than the
worse
forthwith. No
The mandate shall issue
granted
stay
pending petition
di-
is
bewill
Upon
the district
remand
rehearing
application
or
for certiorari.
bi-racial
that a
to see
rected forthwith
type
in Ellis
described
of the
committee
principal
to
Reversed
remanded
County, supra,
is established.
appeal;
cross-appeal.
affirmed as to
require
further directed
The court
in an
Judge
COLEMAN,
(dissent-
committee serve
that
the bi-racial
Circuit
advisory capacity
ing).
the school board
promulga-
of the
in the area
the court
respectfully
dissent.
in
lines
of zone
and maintenance
tion
majority
I feel that
the decision of the
clustering problems and in
pairing
or
principles
is in direct conflict with the
may
they
problems as
location
site
enunciated
Ellis v. Board of Public
may
arise,
areas as
as in such
as well
Orange County,
Instruction
Florida,
appropriate
time to time.
appear
Cir.,
[Judges Bell,
1970,
tions tranquility for of this be the domestic Washington far er more T. School are Country. existing stringent in than that other permit- places were in the Circuit which My point laid is that the Circuit Fifth simply ted there to continue because Orange, down one formula in but its use desegregation. no method of feasible being uniformly permitted. is not panels one school like Various have left ground District on and more Court, Montgomery, Alabama, several that in shall familiar with the facts than we County, Georgia, several Dade Fulton be, ever of- held that method number, County, Florida, un- hope fered He the best Clarksdale. me, yet been dis- known have objections from did this the face of City Again, I of Atlanta. turbed both Clarksdale complaining was done am not of what legal presently no HEW. There exists have these localities. It should been Moreover, Or- if basis for a reversal. object being de- done. place ange taken had never nied treatment under what I am similar no judicial precedents, be there would are far more difficult cir- convinced here, requiring, as warrant for cumstances. children should little hazards to judg- point I must further out consequence. totally integrat- ment of the Court below *11 398 accorded other to the same treatment original [Brown Brown the In cases, in this districts Circuit. Topeka] of of Education ought judgment of the District Court L.Ed. 99 S.Ct. 75 349 U.S. to be reversed. Supreme stated: (1955) Court the Again, respectfully pri- dissent. I the have authorities “School elucidating, for mary responsibility REHEARING PETITION FOR ON solving problems; assessing, these and RE- PETITION FOR AND whether consider will have courts EN BANC HEARING consti- authorities of school the action implementation of the good faith tutes PER CURIAM: principles. governing constitutional Rehearing is denied Petition for proximity to local Because of having polled the and the Court been possible for need the and conditions the request of one of the members of hearings, courts which the further majority Court and of the Circuit can originally these cases best heard regular Judges active serv- who are appraisal. judicial perform Ac- this (Rule having it, ice not in favor voted of appropriate cordingly, we believe Procedure; Appellate of Federal Rules courts. the cases to those remand 12) the Peti- Local Fifth Rule Circuit effectuating fashioning and “In Rehearing DE- tion for En also Banc is guided decrees, courts will be NIED. Traditionally, principles.
equitable already For his reasons stated by a equity characterized has been original COLEMAN, dissent, Circuit shaping flexibility practical rem- Judge, re- dissents from the denial of a facility adjusting edies and hearing en banc. reconciling public private and call exer- These cases for the needs. CLARK, Judge (dissenting): Circuit cise of these traditional attributes respectfully I dissent from the Court’s equity power. refusing grant action in re- in banc end, may “To that courts con- consideration of this case. problems sider related to administra- Ap- Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of arising physical tion from the condi- pellate governing Procedure in banc plant, tion of the school rehearings hearings provides system, such transportation personnel, revi- “ * * * ordinarily will not be ordered sion of school districts attendance except (1) by the when consideration compact areas into units to achieve necessary full court determining to secure or main- system of admission to uniformity (2) tain public its decisions, schools on a nonracial ba- proceeding question when the sis, reg- involves a of local laws revision exceptional importance.” My may dissent necessary in ulations which upon premise is based solving foregoing case this problems.” exceptions falls within both of the stated entirely approach This sound in Rule 35. knowledge Supreme I have no Court has ever modified it. First, legal there rational basis Judge consistently The District has acted in ac- can principles. uniformity cordance with these He had a stand in other decisions right rely Judge on our decision in the Or- this Circuit. As Coleman’s ange judgment, points legally Under his dissent out, case. Clarksdale is every elementary indistinguishable the doors of school in from Ellis v. Bd. Inst, open every child, Orange Florida, Clarksdale are Public gardless (5th 1970).1 is entitled race. This Cir. Judge neighborhood 1. In addition to what Coleman states Ellis decided that agree majority’s County repre- permitted cannot with the view prece- standing circumstances, judg- every ordinary these two violates case also appellate Supreme es of an the de- Court, override dent of judgment judge liberate a district and Rule the United States and conclude: Procedure defin- of Civil Federal Rules *12 * * * ing power appellate courts the limited Concededly Plan HEW [the by a dis- decided fact issue to re-resolve immediately] ordered not into effect is court. trict perfect, paramount but one advan- its tage outstrips and overcomes each of Second, the decision we refuse to the criticisms leveled dis- at it the briefing, processes, the result of view is judge: accomplishes desegra- trict it in this court consideration and decision Municipal Sepa- tion the Clarksdale is, premised in it the on a basis only plan rate School District. As the “ ** majority opinion, words of the approaching goal, now extant even agree extraordinary an I matter.” —it adoption present for the least matter, extraordinary an is and one is a must. more, exceptional importance. It is much objections being as to children more, than one are decid- lawsuit. We required to walk as much miles as two ing separate on the educational future average opposed as an to of 0.5 miles 5,300 of more than Our deci- students. heretofore, having and of to traverse rights parents affect the sions [rivers, natural or man-made barriers and relatives of each of them as well highways] railroads and the claim rights teachers, the of several hundred grade that a 2-2-2 division is somehow personnel staff and administrative em- [long less than a 1-6 desirable division ployed by system. the school It hard is (Em- in use the all district] fail. any to conceive of in- case that could phasis Court.) added the important Yet, volve more dimensions. under the manner in which it again was de- Here our court the misconceives cided, permitted parties' we haven’t the sought true in- end is not statistical —it briefing time, normal tegration counsel have groups of racial in school build- argument. been denied oral ings The three protection but rather the judges participated in this court right who equal of all citizens to receive a making probably of this decision public problem viable education. The is person.2 seriously never conferred in I get “right”. not to the numbers That any them, doubt particularly the ma- problem by any kind of a could be solved jority, personal would claim inti- Preserving mathematician. an environ- macy physical with the in or structures ment for education of all citizens is geographic actual makeup part, part hard and the in which we are School District. Notwith- meeting now with such small success.3 “ * * * n sented largest the maximum that could State’s found has accomplished” by way physically necessary resign of numerical to than less integration system. racial Ob- two weeks before school was start. to viously required the Court could have He left with these words: total racial balance and deep regret there were avail- With I have found it neces- options able sary more request drastic than re- to the Board of Trustees quired accept my resignation Superin- Clarksdale to eliminate County’s all black schools. tendent of the Jackson Public Schools. everyone As is well aware Jackson slightest I intend not intimation schools have been in a continuous series judicial impropriety by making these ob- litigation involving numerous panel strictly servations. followed requiring Superintendent orders the, ordinary, extraordinary pattern now changes. administer drastic ally Profession- adopted by expedite this Court personally I cannot continue “school cases.” superintendent existing under the situa- (August 31, 3. As I write these words tion. 1970), highly-regard- regret news comes that I cannot be involved in progressive superintendent ed developing outstanding pro- convincing 27,067. way Brookings,
Perhaps the most U. S. v. No. granting the merit demonstrate (6) Whether racial ethnic rehearing simply, banc case is composition of local draft boards briefly out context involved set the fact subject challenge. matters in we have al- six 28,295, Cortez Local Board No. v. ready granted pending in banc rehear- Lopez 28,356, Local No. ings: 28,113, Kidd No. Sumrall v. (1) prop- an individual was Whether 28,181 No. Evers Williams erly money judgment awarded a against 27,659, corporation. No. Smith v. Leach Household Carrier Bureau This assert that banc con- Goods *13 granted improvidently Mayflower Terrell sideration Aero vs. vs. 25,989. Inc., cases listed I that Transit Co. No. above. state inbancworthy, if those cases (2) forti- may Whether an oil driller well ori this cause merits same treat- ship sue German and its owner largest past ment. It is time for this in Florida. give face face circuits Zapata Co. Off-Shore vs. M/S multi-par- deliberation as a court to the Bremen and Ruderi Unterweser ty, litigations lump multi-faceted we to- GMBH, 27,497. No. gether conveniently in what call we (3) person pled Whether who has regret keep I cases. that we guilty robbery to bank and been heaping “extraordinary” case de- twenty years sentenced to cisions on the this circuit penitentiary federal must now be pausing without real reflect retried because will not he let his efficacy ways to meet the used privately lawyer say hired that he challenge present. these cases length him told of the maxi- prison mum term could be imposed pled guilty. if he 28,352 Woodall,
U. S. v. 28,353. Nos.
(4) Whether a white man can chal- lenge his conviction on the basis America, UNITED STATES Negroes exclusion of Appellee, juries which considered his
case. WEBB, Defendant, Appellant. Theodore Salisbury Grimes, 27,179. No. No. 7559. (5) person Whether a who has con- Appeals, United States Court of making fessed to moonshine First Circuit. whiskey should have his convic- Oct. tion reversed because the officer stopped
who him he as was head-
ed pa- toward the illicit still took
per sacks from him that contained empty
corks bottles at the
still. gram message get poignant I am confident could exist If we fail might position just sentence, in Jackson. become assumed this last superintendent develop part epitaph here when courts are such a program. Unremitting disruption has other institutions laid to rest society’s prevented accomplishment relevance have lost objective. changing demands. notes ment of an system Federal Buies Buie 53 of the ed under and make recommendations was Procedure, perhaps practical “the find- necessity. simply of Civil We Special ings point report Master as contained out his was entitled to binding upon report, greater weight the court in his are no he because was called a questions report such weight of fact unless as to all master. His was of similar clearly findings report. erroneous”. On the to the HEW gave hand, other the district outlying black) (formerly into smaller high core numerous schools high population single for the whole It involved junior centers. 36,- unchanged population of proposed leave teachers a student district. It schools, segregated high junior (or nearly so) totally ele- 498 in and senior the mentary zoning 43,822 program under the and 2548 system already special disapproved class- Clarks- vocational and educational es, 82,868. population the district court’s dale indeed for a I and total sought desegregation January 10, possible order but now maximum brought acceptability accomplishment a school restored such neighborhood Orange County forward under the Ellis relation little bears proximity or geographical school or case. in this factual situation zoning” “equal No distance label. compact Here we deal with