Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Missouri v. Jenkins

Supreme Court of the United States · 1995 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawEqual ProtectionSchool DesegregationRemediesdesegregationequitable remediesintradistrict violationinterdistrict remedy

Facts

This long-running school desegregation case involved an adjudicated intradistrict violation within the Kansas City, Missouri, School District (KCMSD), not an interdistrict violation. To remedy vestiges of segregation, the District Court had ordered extensive quality education programs, magnet schools, capital improvements, and later salary increases for almost all instructional and noninstructional staff, grounding the salary order in improving the district's "desegregative attractiveness." The District Court also required continued state funding of quality education programs because student achievement remained at or below national norms at many grade levels. The State argued that the salary remedy exceeded permissible remedial authority and that continued funding could not be justified by failure to reach unspecified national achievement levels.

Issue

May a federal court, in remedying an intradistrict school segregation violation, order salary increases and other measures designed to make the district more attractive to nonminority students from outside the district? May the court deny partial unitary status and require continued funding of quality education programs on the basis that student achievement remains below national norms?

Rule

In school desegregation cases, the nature and scope of the remedy must be determined by the nature and scope of the constitutional violation, must directly address and relate to that violation, must be designed as nearly as possible to restore victims to the position they would have occupied absent the violation, and must respect state and local authority. For an intradistrict violation, the remedy must be intradistrict; a court may not pursue an interdistrict goal such as attracting nonminority students from outside the district absent an interdistrict violation or effect. In assessing partial unitary status, the proper inquiry is whether the violator has complied in good faith and whether vestiges of past discrimination have been eliminated to the extent practicable under the Freeman factors, not whether students have reached national test-score norms or the district's "maximum potential."

🔒

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 finds that the state and the Riverton Public Schools in Ohio previously maintained a dual school system within Riverton only. To remedy the violation, the court orders the state to fund a districtwide package of specialty academies and advertising campaigns designed primarily to persuade white families from neighboring Lake County districts to transfer into Riverton schools.

Under the governing rule, is the order most likely permissible?

Explanation. The majority held that the nature and scope of the remedy must match the nature and scope of the constitutional violation. Where the violation is intradistrict only, the remedy must be intradistrict. A court may not pursue the interdistrict objective of drawing nonminority students from outside the district unless there is an interdistrict violation or effect supporting such relief. The fact that the transfers are voluntary does not cure the defect if the remedy's purpose is impermissibly interdistrict.