Alabama State Teachers Ass'n v. Alabama Public School & College Authority

1969-03-03

Headline: Summary order affirms lower court allowing Alabama authority to issue bonds for a new Montgomery four-year college, leaving allegations of a racially segregated university unreviewed on the merits.

Holding: The motions to affirm were granted and the judgment was affirmed.

Real World Impact:

Leaves lower-court approval of Montgomery college construction in place.
Allows the state authority to issue bonds for the new college.
Keeps constitutional questions about segregated higher education unresolved.

Topics: racial segregation in colleges, state funding for higher education, court procedure and jurisdiction, college construction

Summary

Background

A teachers' association and other local plaintiffs sued to block an Alabama law that lets a state school authority sell bonds to build a four‑year college in Montgomery under Auburn University trustees. Plaintiffs argued the plan ignored nearby Alabama State College (predominantly Black) and would produce a largely white university. A three-judge District Court ruled against the plaintiffs, and the case reached the Supreme Court by appeal.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court issued a brief, unsigned order: it granted motions to affirm and affirmed the lower-court judgment without full briefing or oral argument. The Court itself did not explain the merits. Because the appeal was summarily affirmed, the lower court’s decision stands, effectively allowing the state-backed college project to proceed as the District Court allowed.

Real world impact

Practically, the ruling leaves in place the District Court’s outcome and the state authority’s ability to finance the Montgomery college under the challenged statute. The larger constitutional question—whether the State must dismantle a racially divided system of higher education or coordinate the new college with Alabama State—was not resolved by this summary order and could be raised again in future litigation.

Dissents or concurrances

Two Justices dissented: one would have noted probable jurisdiction and set the case for full argument, viewing the issue as part of a broader state-wide segregation regime; the other would have dismissed the appeal for lack of proper three-judge-court jurisdiction, treating the matter as a local dispute.