Yes. When a school district fails to fix illegal segregation on its own, a judge can step in with powerful solutions to make sure the job gets done. The whole point is to completely get rid of the old, unfair system. A judge can use the district's overall racial numbers (like 71% white, 29% Black) as a helpful guide, but it's not a strict rule that every school must follow perfectly. If some schools remain all-white or all-Black, the school district must prove it's not because of discrimination. To mix students up, judges are allowed to redraw school attendance zones, even if it means creating weirdly shaped zones or pairing a school in the city with one far out in the suburbs. Finally, ordering busing is a totally acceptable tool to integrate schools, as long as the bus rides aren't so long that they are bad for kids' health or education.

Yes, courts can do quite a lot to make schools mix students of different races. They can use numbers to help start the process, make sure there aren't schools with only one race, change which schools students go to, and use buses to help students get to different schools. The main point is to stop schools from being split by race and make sure they stay mixed without the courts having to keep checking on them, unless the state tries to split them up again. Courts have the power to order changes to stop schools from doing things that keep students apart by race and to get rid of any remaining unfairness. This is because the type of unfairness determines what the court can do to fix it. Once the court finds that the schools were unfair, the school leaders have to do whatever it takes to get rid of the unfairness completely. If the school leaders or the state aren't purposely trying to change where people live to affect the races at different schools, the court shouldn't have to step in again once the schools are mixed and the unfairness is gone.

We can do quite a lot to make schools mix students of different races and address different forms of segregation. We can use numbers to help start the process, make sure there aren't schools with only one race, change which schools students go to, and use buses to help students get to different schools. Our main point is to stop schools from being split by race and make sure they stay mixed without our having to keep checking on them, unless the state tries to split them up again. We have the power to order changes to stop schools from doing things that keep students apart by race and to get rid of any remaining unfairness. This is because the type of unfairness determines what we can do to fix it. Once we find that the schools were unfair, the school leaders have to do whatever it takes to get rid of the unfairness completely. If the school leaders or the state are not purposely trying to change where people live to affect the races at different schools, we should not have to step in again once the schools are mixed and the unfairness is gone.

"Independent of student assignment, where it is possible to identify a `white school'or a `Negro school'simply by reference to the racial composition of teachers and staff, the quality of school buildings and equipment, or the organization of sports activities, a prima facie case of violation of substantive constitutional rights under the Equal Protection Clause is shown. "

Broad equity powers allow the Court to fashion injunctive relief necessary to stop Defendants' infringing activities.

Yet the Court in Swann was unquestionably right in describing bus transportation as "one tool of school desegregation."

"Once a right and a violation have been shown, the scope of a district court's equitable powers to remedy past wrongs is broad, for breadth and flexibility are inherent in equitable remedies."

In desegregation cases, the objective is "to eliminate from the public schools all vestiges of state-imposed segregation."

"In default by the school authorities of their obligation to proffer acceptable remedies, a district court has a broad power to fashion a remedy that will assure a unitary school system."

"School authorities are traditionally charged with broad power to formulate and implement educational policy and might well conclude, for example, that in order to prepare students to live in a pluralistic society each school should have a prescribed ratio of Negro to white students reflecting the proportion for the district as a whole. To do this as an educational policy is …

The School Board has not pointed to any specific instance in which the court's rezoning plan fails rationally to relate to the court's task of correcting, "by a balancing of the individual and collective interests, the condition that offends the Constitution."

The shibboleth of any school case is that "[a] s with any equity case, the nature of the violation determines the scope of the remedy."

It may promote segregated residential patterns which, when combined with "neighborhood zoning," further lock the school system into the mold of separation of the races.

Yes. A federal district court has broad and flexible equitable powers to remedy state-imposed segregation, and these powers include ordering busing, altering attendance zones, and using racial ratios as a starting point to create a unitary school system. Once a constitutional violation is shown and school authorities default on their affirmative duty to desegregate, the court's remedial power is invoked. The objective is to eliminate all vestiges of state-imposed segregation. The court found that mathematical ratios may be used as a 'starting point' in shaping a remedy, not as a rigid constitutional requirement. Furthermore, the existence of one-race schools in a district with a history of segregation creates a presumption of discrimination that the school board must rebut. To counteract the effects of past discrimination, remedies may include drastic gerrymandering of attendance zones, pairing non-contiguous zones, and ordering transportation (busing) for students, so long as the travel time or distance does not risk students' health or significantly impinge on the educational process.

Yes, federal courts have broad powers to fashion remedies for the violation of constitutional rights in school desegregation cases. The remedies can include the use of mathematical ratios as a starting point, the elimination of one-race schools, the alteration of attendance zones, and the transportation of students. The scope of these remedies must be determined by the effectiveness of the desegregation plan, the need to correct past discrimination, and the practicalities of the situation. The goal is to dismantle the dual school system and create a unitary system without ongoing judicial intervention, provided there is no future state action to segregate schools. The Court's broad equity powers allow it to fashion injunctive relief necessary to stop infringing activities and eliminate all vestiges of state-imposed segregation. This is because the nature of the violation determines the scope of the remedy. Once a constitutional violation is found, school authorities have an affirmative duty to take whatever steps are necessary to eliminate racial discrimination 'root and branch.' Absent a showing of deliberate action by school authorities or another state agency to fix or alter demographic patterns affecting racial composition of schools, further intervention by district courts should not be necessary once the affirmative duty to desegregate has been accomplished and the system is unitary.

Federal courts have broad powers to fashion remedies for the violation of constitutional rights in school desegregation cases. The remedies can include the use of mathematical ratios as a starting point, the elimination of one-race schools, the alteration of attendance zones, and the transportation of students. The scope of these remedies must be determined by the effectiveness of the desegregation plan, the need to correct past discrimination, and the practicalities of the situation. The goal is to dismantle the dual school system and create a unitary system without ongoing judicial intervention, provided there is no future state action to segregate schools. Our broad equity powers allow us to fashion injunctive relief necessary to stop infringing activities and eliminate all vestiges of state-imposed segregation. This is because the nature of the violation determines the scope of the remedy. Once a constitutional violation is found, school authorities have an affirmative duty to take whatever steps are necessary to eliminate racial discrimination 'root and branch.' Absent a showing of deliberate action by school authorities or another state agency to fix or alter demographic patterns affecting racial composition of schools, further intervention by district courts should not be necessary once the affirmative duty to desegregate has been accomplished and the system is unitary.

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot