Busing —Not Integration— Opposed:
Invoke Our Color-Blind Constitution to End It  /  Chapter Four

Befriending Busing Dissenters
n the Supreme Court
Previous Next
      can best be utilized in most instances by the amicus rather than by the principals. The NAACP, for example, suggested the overruling of Plessy v. Ferguson as an amicus curiae in Henderson v. United States (citing 314 U.S. 625 (1941) in Fn. 102). And sometimes such suggestions bear fruit. For example, the ACLU amicus curiae brief was apparently influential in the overturning of Wolf v. Colorado [footnotes omitted].

      ... Thus the function of the amicus can be viewed as simply one of endorsement, or it can be seen also as part of the supplementary strategies available to the principal litigants. Id. at 713.

These briefs by non-parties did not, of course, cause the overturning of the Plessy Doctrine, but did perform a valuable subsidiary role by introducing a variation of the argument by the party they supported which had not yet legal standing and could best be made by amici.

Furthermore, the earlier lack of success by such non-parties as amici curiae before Brown did not deter them from pressing their point of view following Brown in school "desegregation" cases as friends of the court. And it led to greater success in those later cases. An example is the adoption of the affirmative integration theory by the California Supreme Court in Jackson v. Pasadena City School Dist. 59 Cal.2d 876, at 881 (1963), urged only by non-parties in two amici briefs. See Footnote 5 in Note, 51 Cal. L. Rev. 810 (1963).

Their experience was in my mind as school boards seeking relief from busing orders in "desegregation" cases in Oklahoma City and DeKalb County, Georgia, were working their way up to the Supreme Court.

The Oklahoma City board was struggling against busing proponents, who opposed the trial court's rulings concerning a 1985 change in Oklahoma City's desegregation plan which discontinued busing of black students in grades 1-4 and allowed all K-4 students to attend their neighborhood schools.

In DeKalb County, the board was struggling against busing proponents who had obtained a Circuit Court order which effectively required busing of students who had been able for years to attend their    Next


Plessy Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S.537 (1896)
Wolf Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949)
Brown I Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
Topeka, Kansas
Dowell Dowell v. Bd. of Educ. of Okl. City Public Schools,
(10th Cir. 1989), 890 F.2d 1483
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Freeman Freeman v. Pitts, 112 S.Ct. 1430 (1992)
DeKalb County, Georgia
  Busing: Chapter 4, pages 51 - 66 — Previous Next
Busing —Not Integration— Opposed
Invoke our Color-Blind Constitution to End It

A Reasoned Opposition to Race-Based
Affirmative Action in Public Schools
by Elmer Enstrom, Jr.
History of the 30-year Carlin affirmative action lawsuit:
a pro bono case history of applying Constitutional principles.
© 1998-2006, 2013 Enstrom Foundation www.EnstromFoundation.org Bookmark and Share