Bustop, Inc. v. Board of Education of the City of Los Angeles
Headline: Justice declines to halt California’s large-scale busing plan, denying a stay and allowing reassignment of over 60,000 students with long commutes while state courts resolve the dispute.
Holding:
- Allows reassignment of over 60,000 students to new schools.
- Permits long student bus commutes, sometimes about 1.5 hours.
- Leaves the dispute to California state courts rather than blocking the plan.
Summary
Background
A citizens’ group called Bustop, Inc., backed by the California Attorney General, asked a Justice to pause a California Supreme Court order that reinstated a Los Angeles County court desegregation plan. The plan would reassign more than 60,000 students by pairing predominantly Anglo schools with predominantly minority schools, sometimes many miles apart. The record notes round-trip distances of about 36 to 66 miles, some students catching buses before 7 a.m. and facing roughly 1.5-hour rides. Local schools were scheduled to open on September 12, and the Los Angeles Board of Education had been ordered to implement the busing plan.
Reasoning
The central question was whether to stop the state court’s order while appeals or a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court proceeded. The Justice observed that recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions limit federal-constitutional orders for busing, but California’s high court relies on the State Constitution and earlier California cases that allow broader remedies. Given that the California court’s ruling rests on state law authority, that the local school board did not object, and that school was about to begin, the Justice concluded he could not fairly block the state ruling and denied the stay.
Real world impact
The practical result is that the large reassignment and extensive student transportation ordered by the California courts will go forward while state courts handle the legal questions. The decision is not a final federal ruling on constitutionality; it leaves the dispute focused on California law and state courts for further resolution.
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?