Board of Education of City of Los Angeles, Applicant, V
Headline: Los Angeles mandatory busing for roughly 80,000 students allowed to start as Circuit Justice Rehnquist denies a stay, leaving mass student reassignments in place while appeals continue.
Holding:
- Allows mandatory reassignment of roughly 80,000 students to begin as scheduled.
- Increases risk of further “white flight” and enrollment losses for the district.
- Leaves appeals and full review to proceed without halting the plan.
Summary
Background
The Board of Education of the Los Angeles Unified School District asked a Justice to pause a California court order that would mandatorily reassign between 80,000 and 100,000 students in about 165 elementary and junior high schools. The Superior Court had entered a July 7, 1980 remedial order after earlier findings that the district had engaged in practices that produced de jure segregation. The Court of Appeal partly stayed parts of that order, but the California Supreme Court denied the Board’s request for a full stay on August 27, 1980. The Board also argued that a 1979 California constitutional amendment limited state courts’ power to order busing.
Reasoning
The Justice examined whether the federal courts would likely take the case and whether equity supported pausing the order. He found that the Supreme Court would probably have jurisdiction and that the Board had standing to seek review. The Justice acknowledged questions about relying on decade-old findings to justify a federal constitutional violation and noted the Court of Appeal planned careful review. He balanced those doubts against practical equities: school opening was imminent, final planning was underway, and a late stay would disrupt preparations. He concluded the balance of harms did not favor a stay and therefore denied the request to pause the reassignment order.
Real world impact
As denied, the reassignment plan was allowed to proceed at the start of school, affecting tens of thousands of students while appeals and further review continue. The decision does not decide the underlying constitutional issue on the merits and could be reversed or altered on full review. The Justice also noted risks of increased “white flight” and enrollment losses for the district.
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?