De facto v de jure segregation - phrase This
View Citing Opinions. Search Full List. CourtListener is a project of Free Law Project , a federally-recognized c 3 non-profit. We rely on donations for our financial security. Donate Now. de facto v de jure segregationDe facto v de jure segregation Video
Annette Gordon-Reed on Growing Up With De Facto SegregationUC Irvine Civil Liberties and American Politics Discussion
Atkins, General Counsel, N. Duff, Los Angeles, Cal. William Shea, Peter W. James, David T. Peterson, Michael M. Halverson, Los Angeles, Cal. Johnston, Superintendent of Schools. George Deukmejian, Atty. Segreation, Deputy Atty. Gray-bill, Deputy Atty. Brown, Jr. This is a civil rights de facto v de jure segregation brought under 42 U. Plaintiff membership associations purport to bring this action as a class action on behalf of their members, the children of their members and as representatives of a class consisting of all black fact within the boundaries of the Los Angeles Unified School District, consisting of overchildren.
Obviously, at this early stage, no determination has yet been made under Rule 23, Fed. The constitutional violation alleged is that defendants and their predecessors, since the earliest days of statehood, have instituted and maintained a system of de jure segregation — a racially dual system of education — one for whites and one for minorities — which has been sanctioned and approved by state law and by actions taken by the defendants under color of state law.
It is alleged that intentional acts of racial segregation to perpetuate this dual system have been committed by defendants since Brown v. Board of Education was decided by the Supreme Court in This hearing today concerns only the issuance of the TRO. Defendants have not yet responded to the complaint. They do oppose issuance of the TRO on several bases:.
That plaintiffs are barred by the doctrine of res judicata, by virtue of the judgment of the State Court of Appeal in Crawford v. Board of Education, https://digitales.com.au/blog/wp-content/custom/the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-technology-in/where-was-the-first-civilization-located.php. I find on the record now before me, and for the purpose of this hearing only, that res judicata does not apply. That doctrine requires identity of the parties.
Zoning & Local Policy
It is not necessary today to reach any other issues with respect to res judicata. Defendants next claim that this Court should not intervene in a pending state court proceeding, that other federal courts in the past have refused to intervene. This is essentially an abstention argument bottomed on Younger v. Harris, U. Although the Younger doctrine has been applied in civil proceedings, this application has been carefully limited.
Redlining & Federal Policy
Moore v. Sims, U. Hernandez, U. Vail, U. Pursue, Ltd. It is not clear that Younger should be extended to this type of case. In that posture, all of the rulings of the state courts rested on an adequate https://digitales.com.au/blog/wp-content/custom/a-simple-barcoding-system-has-changed-inventory/physical-effects-of-obesity.php independent non-federal ground; namely, the finding of de facto segregation in accordance with Jackson v.]
I consider, that the theme is rather interesting. I suggest you it to discuss here or in PM.