We reemphasized the argument made in Memorandum in Support of Motion for Reconsideration, namely, that the opposing parties had misconstrued Freeman v. Pitts, as supporting maintenance of jurisdiction, by their refusal to recognize the initial finding of de jure segregation in that case and the absence of such a finding in this case. We contended the proper application of Freeman, which Jenkins reaffirmed, supported Groundswell's Motion to Reconsider and terminate these proceedings.

Further, we argued that Jenkins made it clear that Freeman offered no support for the retention of judicial jurisdiction until the academic goals sought in behalf of minority students were met in that case, quoting Chief Justice Rehnquist (in a case pending since 1977 — ten years less than this case):

“Insistence upon academic goals unrelated to the effects of legal segregation unwarrantably postpones the day when the KCMSD will be able to operate on its own.” 115 S.Ct. 2056, 132 L Ed 2d 89.

In conclusion, I argued that the Supreme Court decided the issues in Jenkins in favor of Groundswell in reversing the Eighth Circuit:

On remand, the District Court must bear in mind that its end purpose is not only "to remedy the violation" to the extent practicable, but also "to restore state and local authorities to the control of a school system that is operating in compliance with the Constitution." Freeman, supra, at 489. [emphasis added]