*1 Spitzer a succes- that Akron was Board Jr., Thomas, Patterson, M. Donald S. J. obligated employer to bar- and sor was Tex., Austin, Indept. for Austin School gain representa- the as the with Union Dist. predecessor employer, all of tive of the Alschuler, Levbarg, Mark Albert W. Z. Spitzer reemployed by were whom Chapter, Texas American Central Civil N. L. R. B. v. Burns Interna- Akron. Union, Austin, Tex., Liberties amicus Services, Inc., Security 406 U.S. tional curiae. 272, 1571, (1972); 61 92 S.Ct. 32 L.Ed.2d BROWN, Before JOHN R. Chief Wayne L. v. N. Convalescent Cen- R. B. Judge, WISDOM, GEWIN, BELL, and (6th 1972). ter, Inc., 465 1039 Cir. F.2d COLEMAN, GOLDBERG, AINS that all other We further conclude WORTH, GODBOLD, DYER, SIMPSON, parts the decision of Board are of the MORGAN, CLARK, INGRAHAM and by supported on evidence the substantial Judges.* RONEY, Circuit a record considered as whole. of It that decision the is ordered the THE BY COURT: Board enforced. be al., motion of et inter- The Overton clarify matter, in the within to
venors by court on the mandate issued this August 2, 1972, 848, denied. 467 F.2d is WISDOM, Judge, with whom Circuit BROWN, Judge, Chief and JOHN R. GEWIN, SIMPSON, GOLDBERG and Judges dissenting: join Circuit America, of STATES UNITED Plaintiff-Appellant, example a is an of how “[This case] give reviewing pass buck, court can the v. delay, the the a and confuse school board et al. EDUCATION AGENCY The TEXAS the dis- (Austin District), on remand." So Independent district court School commenting Defendants-Appellees. senting judges in on stated misnomer, majority’s entitled the No. 71-2508. “Remedy”. F.2d 888. 467 Appeals, of States Court United facing necessity for the Court’s The Fifth Circuit. the is now than when the issues clearer 3, Jan. 1973. ap- intervening The case decided. was pellants (representing black and both children), the school Mexican-American appellee Independent Dis- (Austin School Norman, judge trict), that Rich, concede Joseph the trial David L. and D. Washing- they to in a of confusion as state Attys., Dept, Justice, are of S.U. message. Atty., cryptic ton, Seagal Wheatley, the S. Court’s C., U. D. Davis, Antonio, Tex., Brian Bruce San days the decision was after Six Rights Div., Attys., Landsberg, Civil K. rendered, for a “motion the AISD filed C., Washington, Justice, Dept, of D. U. S. stay of The and mandate”. clarification plaintiff-appellant. for 23,1972. August stay on denied the Court point the AISD’s City, appellants out that Sylvia Drew, The Mario New York may be still Antonio, Tex., for clarification Serna, motion San Obledo, John * berry Judge participate in this case. decision in the en banc not Thorn did *2 1002 segregation. you help can If join in that motion. scribed
pending, if so and it, any, hearing appreciate later, I sure out would Now, after a months two thing, they confusion, ap- of what that sort compounded the about the that thing”. by that for clarifica- mean pellants filed motion have a questions, which, in the crucial tion as to important in this ease deal The issues joins. appellee the question the of discrimination With any jure against about the need If were doubt Mexican-Americans, there the de by clarification, action) (state it should be resolved dis- for of that character agrees remedy. with appropriate The AISD the AISD’s brief. crimination, and the quote the I from up majority to the intervenors. to the of the Court It is litigants judge brief: and trial what tell the the AISD’s opinion respect the the to means with De- Mexican-American Students. B. specific was asked to issues the Court agrees fendant-appellee that the con- A denial the motion for decide. of of and burden stitutional standard may just clarification be as construed remand, by which, proof dis- on the majority evidence that the of the court judge the lawful- should trict court did not not know or could articulate the of Mexican- the ness of concentrations “remedy”. for their reasons so-called in individual American students is left in doubt of district schools the litigants judge the and the trial When by majority opinion of the this Court Court are to understand what the unable Exactly one- and be clarified. should remanding trying Appeals say in of to is sitting judges in half of circuit the deny ease, egregious it error to a an is expressly to this case declined have re- a motion for clarification. It is a Judge adopt on the of Wisdom views judicial process. flection on the It is a matter, v. Texas United States this past that in the has reflection on Court a (5th Agency, F.2d 848 Education 467 responsibilities. not shirked its Judge Opinion (Special 1972) of Cir. particular, In are Mexican-Americans major- yet joined Godbold), in a have against are in who discriminated schools ity opinion no contains discussion that placed to be on a lower level than black articulated of issue. The standard this against who are discriminated students by eight-judge majority in Cisneros an they schools? Are to dif- in have more Independent Corpus v. Christi School interposed proving ficulties in their case 1972) (5th District, 142 467 F.2d Cir. devising appropriate and in a court’s authoritative, hardly be considered can interposed remedies than are with majority, only that not one of because respect to black Americans there ? When sitting Judge Thornberry, not is this discriminatory action in is state school Ingra- another, Judge case but because systems by express in fact but not ham, oppo- in the has this case taken statute, for are we under constitution one by joining position in the site both of the South and another for the rest majority by Judge opinion Bell and country? the Judge special by opinion the Godbold. judge The the district turned to con- This is not a to be from case decided lawyers enlightenment. fused for He In the bench or under our Rule 21. a they. puzzled quote I as as what was importance matter of a court’s ex- this lawyers: he said to the planation indispensa- of its an reasons is decision-making. you in A “I ble element assume that all of have read hope opinion responsive opinion. you the the I reasoned to issues know more against safeguard misuse I do. . is an essential about it than . . [T]hen judicial you Judge majority power. majority’s of The refusal have Bell or the saying say opinion coming along what it in case under- that the to means this process way you proceed judicial in in only this circuit can under Swann mines important by pro- to the an area of the law. is ferret out schools