## Facts

- After holding in 1954 that state-sponsored segregation in public schools violates the Constitution, the Supreme Court deferred the question of remedies and ordered reargument on relief.
- The cases involved multiple jurisdictions with segregated public school systems and related legal requirements or permissions for racial separation.
- The Court considered how desegregation should be implemented across varied local conditions, including administrative and logistical obstacles.
- The United States and several states participated as amici at the Court’s invitation.
- The matter returned to the Supreme Court solely to determine the manner and timing of effective relief.

## Issues

1. What means and timetable should be used to implement the constitutional rule that public school segregation is unlawful.
2. Whether responsibility for devising desegregation plans rests primarily with local school authorities, subject to federal judicial supervision.
3. What standards govern district courts in evaluating and enforcing compliance with constitutional requirements in public education.

## Decision

- The Court reaffirmed that racial discrimination in public education is unconstitutional and that all contrary federal, state, and local laws must yield.
- The Court placed primary responsibility for developing desegregation solutions on local school authorities, subject to oversight by federal district courts.
- The Court reversed (except as to Delaware) and remanded to district courts to enter decrees necessary to admit students to public schools on a racially nondiscriminatory basis “with all deliberate speed.”
- The Court directed district courts to evaluate whether school authorities acted in good faith and made a prompt and reasonable start toward compliance.
- The Court allowed additional time only if defendants proved it was necessary in the public interest and consistent with good-faith compliance at the earliest practicable date.
- The Delaware disposition was affirmed with modification to align with the remedial framework.

## Legal Principles

- Constitutional invalidation of segregated public education requires effective remedial orders; statutes or policies requiring or permitting segregation are unenforceable.
- Local school authorities bear initial responsibility to devise workable desegregation plans, but federal district courts must supervise and enforce compliance.
- Equitable remedial discretion permits flexible decree-shaping to reconcile private rights with orderly administration, without permitting resistance to constitutional commands.
- Courts must require a prompt and reasonable start toward full compliance; any delay requires a specific showing by defendants that more time is necessary and consistent with good faith.
- Remedial evaluation may consider practical implementation factors (e.g., facilities, transportation, staffing, attendance area changes, and revision of local rules) only as part of achieving nondiscriminatory admission.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court implemented its earlier holding by directing district courts to supervise school desegregation through equitable decrees, requiring good-faith action by local authorities and compliance “with all deliberate speed,” with any additional time justified by defendants as necessary and consistent with earliest practicable compliance.


Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 (1955)