Smuck v. Hobson
408 F.2d 175 (1969)
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), interested non-parties may be permitted to intervene after a final judgment for the purpose of an appeal when the named defendant, a government entity, chooses not to appeal. Such a decision by the defendant can constitute inadequate representation of the intervenors' interests, thus justifying intervention.
Facts:
- Julius W. Hobson and other parents had children in the District of Columbia public school system.
- The D.C. Board of Education maintained several school attendance 'optional zones,' which were created in areas where changing residential patterns would have otherwise assigned white children to predominantly Black schools.
- The Board of Education's teacher assignment policies resulted in racially segregated faculties, with Black teachers disproportionately assigned to predominantly Black schools.
- Schools located east of Rock Creek Park, which were predominantly attended by Black students, were significantly overcrowded, while schools west of the park, with more white students, had excess capacity.
- The school system implemented a 'track system' for ability grouping that disproportionately placed Black and low-income students in the lowest, non-college-preparatory tracks based on culturally-biased standardized tests.
Procedural Posture:
- Julius W. Hobson and other plaintiffs sued Superintendent Carl F. Hansen and the D.C. Board of Education in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging unconstitutional operation of the school system.
- The district court found for the plaintiffs and entered a comprehensive decree ordering the Board to remedy various discriminatory practices.
- The Board of Education voted not to appeal the district court's judgment.
- Superintendent Hansen (after resigning), Board member Carl Smuck, and a group of parents each sought to appeal the decision.
- The parent group filed a motion to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2) for the purpose of prosecuting an appeal.
- The district court granted the parents' motion to intervene to allow the Court of Appeals to resolve the standing and intervention questions.
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 group of parents have the right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) to intervene after a final judgment to appeal a court order against a school board, when the school board itself has decided not to appeal?
Opinions:
Majority - Bazelon, C.J.
Yes. A group of parents has the right to intervene to appeal because their interest in their children's education would be practically impaired if the order becomes final without appellate review, and the Board of Education's decision not to appeal means their interest is no longer adequately represented. The court analyzes intervention of right under the three-part test of Rule 24(a)(2): interest, impairment, and inadequate representation. The parents have a sufficient 'interest' in their children's education. Their ability to protect this interest would be practically 'impaired' because a final, unappealed order would bind the school board and could not be effectively challenged in a new lawsuit due to stare decisis. Finally, the Board's decision not to appeal demonstrates 'inadequate representation' of the parents' interest in preserving the Board's discretionary authority. On the merits, the court affirms the decree's requirements for faculty integration, bussing to relieve overcrowding, and elimination of optional zones as appropriate remedies for proven constitutional violations. However, the court holds the parents lack standing to challenge the abolition of the 'track system' because the decree does not realistically limit the new school board's discretion to implement other forms of ability grouping.
Dissenting - Danaher, J.
No. The judiciary should exercise restraint and vacate the district court's decree entirely. With the recent creation of a new, elected Board of Education by Congress, the 'control' of the public schools has been returned to the citizens. It is in this political arena, not the courts, where these complex educational and social problems should be resolved. The court's interposition should cease, allowing the new Board to formulate its own policies and solutions without being bound by a judicial decree.
Dissenting - Burger, C.J.
No. Joining Judge Danaher's dissent, this opinion argues for judicial restraint, asserting that complex educational policy is far beyond the competence of judges. It notes that the majority's opinion construes the trial court's mandate so narrowly that it becomes essentially advisory, which the new school board can use or disregard like any other report. Citing legal commentary, the dissent warns that judicial intervention in such matters risks committing the judiciary's prestige to ineffective solutions and foreclosing more flexible, experimental approaches by educational professionals.
Analysis:
This case is significant for its liberal interpretation of the requirements for intervention of right under Rule 24(a)(2), especially for post-judgment intervention to perfect an appeal. The court established that a named party's decision not to appeal can itself be the critical factor demonstrating that an intervenor's interests are no longer adequately represented. This precedent empowers non-party stakeholders, such as parent groups or public interest organizations, to continue litigation when a government defendant decides to acquiesce to a lower court ruling. The opinion's bifurcated standing analysis on the merits—finding standing to appeal some issues but not others—also serves as a notable example of judicial avoidance, allowing the court to affirm core desegregation remedies while sidestepping a definitive ruling on the highly controversial educational policy of ability tracking.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Smuck v. Hobson (1969)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"