Summary of Brown v. Board of Education II

By Jacob Rosenblum

After the Supreme Court’s decision in the case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka in 1954, which declared racial discrimination in public education unconstitutional under the 14th Ammendment, the Supreme Court assembled one year later to establish the requirements of their decision, which, one might hope, would help the states cope with such a huge social change. Given the fact that racial discrimination in public schools and in the general populous of most states was considered normal and natural the Court requested further argument on the issue of relief so it could better direct district courts and state governments on how to approach this new constitutional precedent.

The multiple plantiffs in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), from Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware originallyargued that the current societal technique of racial segregation, while camouflaged as providing for the separate but equal treatment of both white and black Americans, instead encouraged second-rate accommodations, services, and management for African Americans or people of color. The implementation and practice of racial segregation in the world of public education, varied extensively from the 17 states that required racial segregation to the 16 that prohibited it. Though the Supreme Court was able to rule quite decidedly in the first appearance of Brown v. Board of Education (1954), with such a large social impact the Court was wise to set another discussion to further their efforts to set a known precedent in all of the United States. The question that the Supreme Court struggled with as a consequence of their decision to set a completely knew precedent in particular was:

What methods should be used to execute the principles that were originally announced in Brown v. Board of Education I?

Overall, the Court knew that the problems specifically identified in Brown I, because of their relatively volatile and engraved social relevance, without a doubt required various local solutions depending on a particular state’s sentiment toward racial segregation. Chief Justice at the time, the Honorable Earl Warren put a lot of pressure on local school districts and the courts which originally heard segregation cases to change and align their communities to fulfill their decision in favor of Brown. According to the Supreme Court’s revisit to Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, district courts and school administrators were to implement the doctrine the Supreme Court had decided upon in its first Brown decision. Chief Justice Warren urged certain localities to act on the new principles without delay and to move toward complete compliance with them "with all deliberate speed."

After returning to examine the finer details of their original decision in Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court drafted more specific statutes to accompany their decision. They are paraphrased below:

Details of Decision and Further Directions as Decided by the Supreme Court in Brown II-

1. Racial discrimination in public education is unconstitutional. All federal, state or local laws that require or permit discrimination must orient themselves to respect this decision.

2. The judgments listed below are to be remanded and the cases must be brought back to the District Courts to make such situations/decrees consistent with this decision. Also as is necessary, it is the job of the District Courts to admit the parties to these cases to public schools on a “racially nondiscriminatory basis” as quickly as possible.

a. School authorities have the main responsibility of clarifying, assessing and solving the varied local school problems, which may require solution in fully implementing the governing constitutional principles.

b. District Courts will have to consider whether or not the action of school authorities constitutes good faith implementation of the governing constitutional principles.

c. Because of their proximity to local conditions and the possible need for further hearings, the District Courts, which originally heard these cases are best to perform this “judicial appraisal”.

d. In fashioning and effectuating the decrees, the courts will be guided by evenhanded principles -- characterized by a practical flexibility in finding remedies and an ability for adjusting and reconciling public and private requirements.

e. At stake is the personal interest of the plaintiffs in admission to public schools as soon as practicable on a nondiscriminatory basis.

f. Courts of justice may properly take into account the public interest in the elimination of a variety of obstacles in making the transition to school systems operated in accordance with constitutional precedents, but the effective nature of these constitutional principles cannot be allowed to give way simply because one may disagree with them.

g. While giving weight to these public and private considerations, the District Courts will also require that the defendants make a prompt and reasonable start toward full compliance with the ruling of this Court.

h. Upon such a start has been made, the District Courts may find that additional time is necessary to carry out the ruling in an effective and fair manner.

i. The burden rests on the defendants to establish that additional time is necessary in the public interest and is consistent with good faith compliance at the earliest date possible.

j. The courts may consider problems related to administration, arising from the physical condition of the school plant, the school transportation system, personnel, revision of school districts and attendance areas into compact units to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis, and revision of local laws and regulations which may be necessary in solving the previous problems.

k. The courts will also consider the satisfactory nature of any plans the defendants may propose to meet these problems and to effectuate a transition to a racially nondiscriminatory school system.

l. During this period of transition, the District Courts will retain jurisdiction of these cases.

As one can see, this Supreme Court decision more closely resembles a chore list for the states than anything else. After realizing the ramifications of their decision in the original case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the Court was quick to ensure that requirements were set to regulate and facilitate such a huge social change upon further argument (Brown II). This revisit by the Supreme Court is a great example of how carefully a decision is made and what happens to effectuate an enormous change in precedent Plessy v. Ferguson. For a lot of people segregation and the concept of “separate but equal” was the way things had always been and by disrupting the social norm of white society, the Supreme Court had no choice, but to take another look at the situation and give direction to better implement their decided ideology. The Supreme Court in this way is perhaps more efficient when it comes to implementing change than any other branches of government. Just sayin’…