## Facts

- Black and Hispanic parents sued Denver’s public school district and school board, alleging unconstitutional racial segregation.
- The initial challenge focused on the Park Hill area, where the district court found the board intentionally created and maintained segregated schools through attendance-zone decisions, optional zones, school siting, grade changes, and use of mobile classrooms.
- The district court ordered desegregation remedies for Park Hill.
- Plaintiffs sought broader, districtwide relief for “core city” schools; the district court refused, requiring proof of intentional segregation for each separate area.
- Although denying districtwide desegregation, the district court found core city minority schools educationally inferior and ordered “substantially equal facilities” rather than desegregation.
- The court of appeals affirmed the Park Hill desegregation order, reversed the equalization order, and rejected districtwide relief.
- The Supreme Court granted review to address the standard for inferring districtwide intent and the treatment of Black and Hispanic students in identifying segregated schools.

## Issues

1. Whether proof that school officials intentionally segregated schools in a substantial portion of a district creates a presumption that other segregation in the district is also intentionally caused, shifting the burden to school authorities.
2. Whether courts must treat Black and Hispanic students together as minority students, rather than separately, when identifying “segregated” schools and framing remedies.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held that Black and Hispanic students should be treated together as minority students for purposes of defining segregated schools.
- The Court held that intentional segregation in a substantial portion of a school district supports an inference that the district operates a dual school system, unless the district is shown to be divided into clearly unrelated units.
- Once plaintiffs prove intentional segregation in a substantial part of the district, a prima facie case is established and the burden shifts to the school board to prove that segregation elsewhere was not the product of segregative intent.
- The Court rejected a piecemeal approach that required plaintiffs to prove de jure segregation school-by-school or area-by-area after intentional segregation had been shown in a substantial portion of the system.
- The case was remanded for application of the burden-shifting framework and for determination of whether districtwide desegregation relief was required.

## Legal Principles

- Segregation violates the Equal Protection Clause when it is caused or maintained by purposeful governmental action, even absent a statute mandating segregation.
- Proof of intentional segregation in a substantial portion of a district permits a finding of a dual school system and creates a rebuttable presumption that other racial separation in the district is also intentional.
- After such proof, the school board bears the burden to show that segregation in other schools was not motivated by segregative intent.
- In assessing racial isolation, Black and Hispanic students may be treated as a single minority category when comparing their educational position to that of Anglo students.
- Where a dual system is found, the appropriate remedy is dismantling the segregated system rather than substituting “equalization” of segregated schools for desegregation.

## Conclusion

The Court required courts to treat Black and Hispanic students as similarly situated minority students and held that intentional segregation in a substantial portion of a school district triggers a presumption of systemwide de jure segregation, shifting the burden to the school board and permitting districtwide desegregation remedies on remand.


Keyes v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 413 U.S. 189 (1973)