Green v. County Sch. Bd. of New Kent Cty.
391 U.S. 430 (1968)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A school board's constitutional duty to establish a unitary, non-racial school system is not met by a 'freedom-of-choice' plan that fails to dismantle a dual, segregated system. The board has an affirmative duty to formulate a plan that promises realistically to work now and produces tangible results in desegregation.
Facts:
- New Kent County, Virginia, a rural county with no residential segregation, had a population that was approximately half Black and half white.
- For years, the county operated a state-mandated dual school system with two schools: New Kent for white students and George W. Watkins for Black students.
- The school system transported students on overlapping bus routes, with buses for each school traveling throughout the entire county.
- Eleven years after Brown v. Board of Education, to maintain eligibility for federal aid, the School Board adopted a 'freedom-of-choice' plan allowing students to choose which school to attend.
- After three years under the plan, no white students had chosen to attend the all-Black Watkins school, and 85% of Black students remained at Watkins, leaving the dual system largely intact.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioners (Green et al.) filed suit against the New Kent County School Board in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, seeking to enjoin the operation of a segregated school system.
- The School Board adopted a 'freedom-of-choice' plan.
- The District Court approved the desegregation plan.
- Petitioners appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's approval of the 'freedom-of-choice' component of the plan.
- Petitioners sought and were granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a 'freedom-of-choice' plan that results in continued racial identifiability of schools satisfy a school board's affirmative duty under the Fourteenth Amendment to dismantle a state-imposed dual school system?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Brennan
No. A 'freedom-of-choice' plan is only a constitutionally acceptable means to the end of desegregation if it is effective in dismantling a dual school system. The Court reasoned that Brown II placed an affirmative duty on school boards to convert to a unitary system in which racial discrimination is eliminated 'root and branch.' The time for 'all deliberate speed' had run out, and the board's constitutional obligation was to create a plan that 'promises realistically to work, and promises realistically to work now.' The Court found that the New Kent plan failed this test, as it produced minimal desegregation and maintained the racial identity of the schools. Instead of dismantling the dual system, the plan improperly burdened children and their parents with the responsibility that Brown II placed squarely on the School Board itself.
Analysis:
This decision marked a significant shift in desegregation jurisprudence, moving the standard from 'all deliberate speed' to a demand for immediate and tangible results. By rejecting a facially neutral plan because it was ineffective in practice, the Court established that the constitutionality of a desegregation plan is measured by its actual effectiveness. This ruling invalidated passive 'freedom-of-choice' plans in many districts and placed a heavy, affirmative burden on school boards to actively pursue integration through more effective means, such as zoning or consolidation. It signaled that courts would no longer tolerate delay and would scrutinize desegregation plans for their practical outcomes, not just their stated intentions.
Unlock the full brief for Green v. County Sch. Bd. of New Kent Cty.