BRADLEY ET AL. v. SCHOOL BOARD OF CITY OF RICHMOND ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. No. 415.
Decided November 15, 1965. *
[ Footnote * ] Together with No. 416, Gilliam et al. v. School Board of City of Hopewell et al., also on petition for writ of certiorari to the same court.
The lower court approved school desegregation plans for Hopewell and Richmond, Virginia, without full inquiry into petitioners' contention that faculty allocation on an alleged racial basis invalidated the plans. Held: Petitioners were entitled to full evidentiary hearings on their contention, and such hearings should be held without delay.
Certiorari granted; 345 F.2d 310; 345 F.2d 325, judgments vacated and remanded.
Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III, S. W. Tucker and Henry L. Marsh III for petitioners in both cases.
J. Elliott Drinard and Henry T. Wickham for respondents in No. 415. Frederick T. Gray for respondents in No. 416.
The petitions for writs of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit are granted for the purpose of deciding whether it is proper to approve school desegregation plans without considering, at a full evidentiary hearing, the impact on those plans of faculty allocation on an alleged racial basis. We hold that the Court of Appeals erred in both these cases in this regard, 345 F.2d 310, 319-321; 345 F.2d 325, 328.
Plans for desegregating the public school systems of Hopewell and Richmond, Virginia, were approved by the [382 U.S. 103, 104] District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia without full inquiry into petitioners' contention that faculty allocation on an alleged racial basis rendered the plans inadequate under the principles of Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 . The Court of Appeals, while recognizing the standing of petitioners, as parents and pupils, to raise this contention, declined to decide its merits because no evidentiary hearings had been held on this issue. But instead of remanding the cases for such hearings prior to final approval of the plans, the Court of Appeals held that "[w]hether and when such an inquiry is to be had are matters with respect to which the District Court . . . has a large measure of discretion," and it reasoned as follows:
The judgments of the Court of Appeals are vacated and the cases are remanded to the District Court for evidentiary hearings consistent with this opinion. We, of course, express no views of the merits of the desegregation plans submitted, nor is further judicial review precluded in these cases following the hearings.