## Facts

- Parents of Black elementary students sued the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) seeking desegregation of elementary schools.
- SFUSD had not operated under a statutorily imposed dual school system, but plaintiffs alleged intentional acts by the school board that produced segregation and triggered an affirmative duty to desegregate.
- The district court found a constitutional violation and required the parties to submit desegregation plans.
- Both submitted plans addressed balancing not only Black and white students but also Chinese-American and other ethnic groups.
- Before hearings on the remedial plans, parents of children of Chinese ancestry sought to intervene to protect their children’s interests, including continuation of community schools offering Chinese language and cultural programs.
- The district court refused to shorten time for the intervention motion, held plan hearings without the proposed intervenors, then denied intervention and ordered SFUSD to implement desegregation under one of the plans.
- SFUSD appealed the liability finding and remedial orders; the Chinese-ancestry parents appealed the denial of intervention.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court used the correct legal standard to find de jure segregation in a district without a historically imposed dual school system.
2. Whether parents of Chinese-ancestry students were entitled to intervene as of right in the remedial phase under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2).

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s constitutional violation finding and the related remedial orders.
- The court remanded for reconsideration of liability under the intent-focused standard required by intervening authority.
- The court reversed the denial of intervention and directed the district court to permit the Chinese-ancestry parents to intervene and participate on remand.

## Legal Principles

- In a school system not structured by a legally mandated dual system, a finding of de jure segregation requires proof of intentional governmental action undertaken with the purpose and effect of causing segregation; racial imbalance alone is insufficient.
- When the liability determination is vacated for application of an incorrect standard, remedial orders dependent on that liability finding must also be reconsidered.
- Intervention as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) requires: (1) a protectable interest relating to the subject of the action, (2) practical impairment of that interest from the action’s disposition, and (3) inadequate representation by existing parties.
- Timeliness for Rule 24(a)(2) is assessed pragmatically; seeking to intervene before key remedial hearings may be timely even in advanced litigation where remedies will directly affect the applicant’s interests.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit required the district court to reassess alleged de jure segregation using an intent-based standard applicable to non-dual systems, and it held that Chinese-ancestry parents had a right to intervene because the remedial plans could materially affect their children’s educational and cultural interests and those interests were not adequately represented.


Johnson v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 500 F.2d 349 (9th Cir. 1974)