Green v. County School Board of New Kent County

1968-05-27
Share:

Headline: Court rejects 'freedom-of-choice' desegregation plan as inadequate and orders the county school board to adopt concrete steps that will dismantle racially segregated schools and integrate students promptly.

Holding:

Real World Impact:
  • Forces school boards to replace ineffective 'freedom-of-choice' plans with realistic desegregation measures.
  • Allows courts to require zoning or consolidation to achieve prompt integration.
  • District courts must retain supervision until segregation is fully eliminated.
Topics: school desegregation, race and education, school zoning, freedom-of-choice plans

Summary

Background

A county school board in a rural Virginia county operated two racially identified schools — one for white children and one for Negro children — serving about 1,300 pupils in a community with no residential segregation. Parents and children sued in 1965 seeking an end to the dual system. In 1965 the board adopted a “freedom-of-choice” plan letting most pupils choose their school. The District Court approved that plan and the Court of Appeals largely affirmed, but the Supreme Court agreed to review whether the plan met the duty to end state-imposed segregation.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether the choice plan actually achieved a nonracial, unitary school system. The Court found the plan ineffective: after three years no white child had chosen the formerly Negro school, and most Negro children still attended the all-Negro school. The Justices emphasized that “freedom of choice” is only a means, not an end, and school boards must show that a plan will realistically and promptly dismantle the dual system. Given long delay and poor results, the Court held the plan insufficient and vacated the lower court’s approval, directing the board to adopt more effective measures and the district court to retain oversight.

Real world impact

The ruling requires the board to formulate new, realistic steps — for example zoning or school consolidation — to end the dual system. Courts must evaluate plans by actual results, not just formal choice, and may keep cases under supervision until segregation is fully removed.

Ask about this case

Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).

What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?

How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?

What are the practical implications of this ruling?

Related Cases