ordered implementation of a revised desegregation plan, one that again substantially relied upon mandatory pupil reassignment and transportation.

The California Court of Appeal reversed. 113 Cal. App. 3d 633, 170 Cal.Rptr. 495 (1981). The court found that the trial court's 1970 findings of fact would not support the conclusion that the District had violated the Federal Constitution through intentional segregation. Thus, Proposition I was applicable to the trial court's desegregation plan and would bar that part of the plan requiring mandatory student reassignment and transportation. Moreover, the court concluded that Proposition I was constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. Id., at 654.... The court found no obligation on the part of the State to retain a greater remedy at state law against racial segregation than was provided by the Federal Constitution. Ibid. The court rejected the claim that Proposition I was adopted with a discriminatory purpose. Id., at 654-655....

Determining Proposition I to be applicable and constitutional, the Court of Appeal vacated the orders entered by the Superior Court. The California Supreme Court denied hearing.... We granted certiorari....

In a portion of its decision affirming the California Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court used language, underscored below, which reflected more favorably upon our proposed argument to Judge Egly on the Constitution than the argument of the Crawford amici (458 U.S. at 535):

We agree with the California Court of Appeal in rejecting the contention that once a State chooses to do "more" than the Fourteenth Amendment requires, it may never recede.  We reject an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment so destructive of a State's democratic processes and of its ability to experiment. This interpretation has no support in the decisions of this Court.... [emphasis added]