Missouri v. Jenkins

515 U.S. 70 (1995)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The underlying case started in 1977 when the school board and two children of school board members brought suit against the State and other defendants alleging racial segregation. The District Court certified the class after realigning the school board as a nominal defendant. The trial lasted 7.5 months with a finding of segregation and the failure to eliminate the system that caused it. The first remedial court order was issued in 1985; those are listed on the bottom of page 229 and top of page 230 Re 5th. However, the court recognized that total desegregation was impossible because of the fact that the areas involved held 68.3% black populations. In November 1986, a second order was made for a magnet school program, and a capital improvements plan in an effort to draw in nonminority children from private schools that have abandoned the public school system. The cost of the first order was $220 million, and the cost of the magnet program was $448 million. In April 1993, the District Court again considered the approval of a long-term magnet program that included a ten-year budget of over $500 million. The Court rejected that program. The District Court’s overall desegregation has been described as the most ambitious and expensive remedial program in the history of school desegregation. The final results of that order are listed in the last paragraph of page 231 Re 5th edition. The cost of this remedial plan has far and away exceeded the budget of the school board and its authority to tax. The State, through joint and several liability has borne the brunt of the costs of these programs. The District Court admits that it has allowed the planners to dream and in short, the District Court has provided this school district with facilities and opportunities not available anywhere else in the country. Under the present facts, the State has challenged the District Court requirement that it fund salary increases for the school staff. The State has claimed that setting salaries is beyond the scope of the District Court’s remedies. The District Court rejected these arguments. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.