## Facts

- Black and low-income students in the District of Columbia public schools sued the superintendent, the Board of Education, and related officials in a class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The suit challenged school system practices alleged to produce racial and socioeconomic inequality despite facial neutrality, including student tracking based on standardized testing, attendance zoning and transfer policies, and unequal distribution of educational resources.
- The school system used a multi-track structure (including basic/special academic, general, and honors tracks) with placements driven largely by early standardized test results.
- Track placement was largely fixed; most students rarely moved between tracks after initial assignment.
- Lower tracks provided a reduced, non-remedial curriculum with fewer opportunities, while higher tracks offered stronger academic programming and access to better educational opportunities.
- Evidence showed Black and low-income students were disproportionately placed in lower tracks; white and more affluent students predominated in advanced tracks.
- The standardized tests used for placement were found to reflect cultural and socioeconomic background, rather than measuring students’ true educational potential.
- Attendance boundaries and an optional transfer regime interacted with housing patterns to maintain racially identifiable schools and facilitate avoidance of predominantly Black schools.
- Predominantly white schools received comparatively superior resources, including more experienced teachers and better facilities, than predominantly Black schools.
- A separate challenge to the statute governing the Board’s composition was resolved by a three-judge court; the remaining claims proceeded to decision on the merits before the district judge.

## Issues

1. Whether the District’s tracking system, relying heavily on standardized tests and producing racially and socioeconomically stratified tracks, denied equal educational opportunity in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
2. Whether attendance zones, optional transfers, and resource allocation—though facially neutral—operated to perpetuate segregation and unequal educational opportunity in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
3. Whether the combined operation of these policies constituted unconstitutional discrimination against Black and poor students within a federal public school system.

## Decision

- The court ruled for the plaintiffs on the principal equal educational opportunity claims.
- The court held that the school authorities unconstitutionally denied Black and poor children equal educational opportunity compared to white and more affluent children.
- The court invalidated the tracking system as implemented, focusing on its heavy reliance on biased standardized tests and its near-permanent placement effects.
- The court ordered substantial remedial changes to attendance zones and transfer practices to reduce racial and socioeconomic isolation.
- The court required corrective measures addressing disparities in staffing and resource distribution across schools.

## Legal Principles

- In the District of Columbia, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause includes an equal-protection component that constrains discriminatory public school policies.
- Facially neutral educational policies can violate constitutional equality when their predictable and demonstrated effects deny protected groups equal educational opportunity.
- Ability grouping may be permissible in theory, but tracking becomes unconstitutional when it functions as a mechanism of segregation and is grounded in invalid or biased measures that lock disadvantaged students into inferior programs.
- School assignment and transfer policies are unconstitutional when they materially contribute to continued segregation and unequal educational opportunity, even absent express racial classifications.
- Where constitutional violations in public education are established, effective relief may require affirmative, system-level changes to eliminate discriminatory structures and their effects.

## Conclusion

The court found that the District of Columbia public school system’s tracking, assignment, transfer, and resource practices collectively denied Black and poor students equal educational opportunity under the Fifth Amendment, and it ordered broad structural remedies aimed at dismantling policies that produced segregation and unequal schooling outcomes.


Hobson v. Hansen, 269 F. Supp. 401 (D.D.C. 1967)