Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1954 · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureConstitutional Lawdesegregationunitary statusaffirmative dutyvestigesracial imbalancestudent assignment

Facts

This case concerns the remedial phase of longstanding school desegregation litigation in Topeka after the constitutional violation had already been established in 1955. At the 1986 trial, the Topeka school system still operated a number of racially identifiable schools, and the district court concluded the system had achieved unitary status because the current imbalance was not the product of overt or covert intentional segregative conduct. The district court also placed the burden on plaintiffs to prove illegal segregation. The appellate court emphasized that Topeka had done very little to desegregate student assignment practices and that faculty and staff assignments also reflected minority student assignment patterns.

Issue

In the remedial phase of a school desegregation case, may a district court declare a school system unitary by requiring plaintiffs to prove current discriminatory intent and by relying on the absence of present racial animus? More specifically, after Dowell and Freeman, had Topeka shown that current racial imbalance in student and faculty/staff assignments was not proximately traceable to its prior de jure segregation and that continued judicial supervision should end?

Rule

Once state-enforced school segregation is shown to have existed, current racial imbalance is presumed to be causally related to that prior de jure system, and the school district bears the burden of showing that any current imbalance is not traceable, in a proximate way, to the prior violation. A district may be released from supervision only if it has complied in good faith with the desegregation decree and eliminated the vestiges of past discrimination to the extent practicable, and a court may withdraw supervision incrementally only after finding both that release in a given facet will not impair compliance in others and that the district has demonstrated systemwide good faith.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A federal court found in 1962 that the public schools in Meridian, Mississippi had been operated as a de jure segregated system. In 2026, several schools remain racially identifiable, and the school board asks the court to terminate supervision because the families challenging termination cannot prove that current officials intentionally drew attendance zones to separate students by race.

How should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority opinion holds that in the remedial phase, plaintiffs need not prove a new act of intentional discrimination. Once state-enforced segregation existed, current racial imbalance is presumed causally related to that prior de jure system. The school district bears the burden of showing that any current imbalance is not traceable, in a proximate way, to the prior violation. Mere passage of time does not automatically shift the burden back to plaintiffs.