Moore v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

Supreme Court of the United States · 1971 · Federal Courts

Federal Courtscase or controversyArticle IIIadversenessthree-judge courtdirect appeal28 U.S.C. § 125328 U.S.C. § 2281

Facts

The District Court declared a portion of North Carolina's anti-busing statute unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement. At the hearing before the three-judge court, both parties argued that the anti-busing law was constitutional and urged that the District Court's order adopting the Finger plan should be set aside. Thus, both litigants sought the same outcome: a ruling that the statute was constitutional. Neither party sought an injunction restraining a state officer from enforcing a state statute alleged to be unconstitutional.

Issue

Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction over a direct appeal when both parties before the three-judge court argued for the constitutionality of the statute and sought the same result, and when no party sought an injunction against enforcement of a state statute as unconstitutional.

Rule

There is no Article III case or controversy when both litigants desire precisely the same result. In addition, a direct appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1253 is unavailable unless the case is a civil action required to be heard by a three-judge district court, including one in which an injunction is sought to restrain a state officer from enforcing a state statute alleged to be unconstitutional under 28 U.S.C. § 2281.

🔒

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.

In Denver, the Redstone Parents Alliance sued the Colorado Education Commissioner in federal court over a state student-assignment statute. At the three-judge hearing, both the Alliance and the Commissioner argued that the statute was constitutional and both asked the court to vacate an earlier remedial order that conflicted with the statute.

If a direct appeal is taken to the Supreme Court from the three-judge court's decision, what is the strongest jurisdictional objection?

Explanation. Article III requires adverse parties. When both litigants desire precisely the same result, there is no case or controversy. The majority held that such a lack of adverseness defeats Supreme Court jurisdiction on direct appeal. (Derived from Moore v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971).)