Davis v. Board of School Comm'rs of Mobile Cty.

1971-04-20
Share:

Headline: Court affirms faculty-integration orders but reverses student-assignment plan, sending Mobile County back to create a realistic desegregation plan that may use busing and split zoning for thousands of students.

Holding: The Court affirmed the appeals court on faculty integration but reversed its student‑assignment plan and remanded Mobile County to create a realistically effective desegregation decree, permitting measures like busing and split zoning.

Real World Impact:
  • Requires a new student‑assignment plan that may use busing and split zoning.
  • Directly affects thousands of Black students in metropolitan Mobile schools.
  • Affirms orders to match faculty and staff ratios to district composition.
Topics: school desegregation, school busing, school zoning, racial integration in schools

Summary

Background

People who challenged Mobile County’s school plan argued it left many Black children in segregated schools. Mobile County had about 73,500 pupils in 91 schools, about 58% white and 42% Negro, and transported 22,000 pupils daily in over 200 buses. The District Court’s earlier plan left large numbers of Negro children in all‑Negro schools; one earlier version left 18,623 (60% of 30,800) Negro children in 19 all‑Negro schools. The Court of Appeals revised student assignments, approved some rural plans, and ordered improvements in faculty and staff integration.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the student‑assignment parts of the appeals court plan actually desegregated schools. The Court affirmed the appeals court’s ruling that the school board had largely failed to integrate faculty and should match staff ratios to the district. But the Court reversed the appeals court where it treated the eastern part of metropolitan Mobile in isolation and refused busing or split zoning. The Justices emphasized that the measure of a plan is how effectively it works and sent the case back for a new decree “that promises realistically to work, and promises realistically to work now.” Petitioners succeeded in getting the student‑assignment scheme rejected; the board kept the faculty‑integration requirement.

Real world impact

The ruling sends Mobile County back to draw a new student‑assignment plan that may use rezoning, pairing, busing, or split zones to achieve real desegregation. The opinion relied on enrollment figures showing many elementary and secondary schools remained overwhelmingly Negro (for example, nine eastern elementary schools were over 90% Negro, with 7,651 students), so thousands of students are directly affected. The decision remands the matter for practical, immediate fixes rather than leaving the appeals court plan in place.

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