Dayton Bd. of Ed. v. Brinkman
439 U.S. 1357 (1978)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Dayton Bd. of Ed. v. Brinkman, 439 U.S. 1357 (1978)

Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman

No. A-212

Decided August 28, 1978

439 U.S. 1357

ON APPLICATION FOR STAY

Syllabus

Application for stay, pending consideration of a petition for certiorari, of Court of Appeals' judgment and mandate ordering an extensive school desegregation plan continued in Dayton, Ohio, is denied to preserve the status quo of the school system during this Court's consideration of the petition. Columbus Board of Education v. Penick, ante p. 439 U. S. 1348, distinguished.

MR. JUSTICE STEWART, Circuit Justice.

The Dayton, Ohio, Board of Education requests that I stay execution of the judgment and mandate of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in this case pending consideration by this Court of the Board's petition for certiorari. The judgment reversed the dismissal by the District Court of the plaintiffs' school desegregation suit, and ordered the extensive desegregation plan continued.

The applicant urges that this case be stayed because it raises many of the issues presented by Columbus Board of Education v. Penick, ante p. 439 U. S. 1348. MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST stayed the mandate of the Sixth Circuit in that case on August 11, 1978. A crucial distinction between these cases leads me to believe that this application should be denied. Columbus had never been the subject of a school desegregation remedy; the Dayton system, by contrast, will enter its third year under the current plan on September 7. In Columbus, the status quo was preserved by granting a stay; here, it can be preserved only by denying one. To avoid disrupting the school system during our consideration of the case, the stay should be denied. This disposition, of course, does not reflect any view on the merits of the issues presented.

The application for a stay of the judgment and mandate of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is denied.

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.