The first step, of course, was to gain intervention in behalf of the association, Groundswell, and individual parents and their student children, and others similarly situated, versus the Board and Carlin Plaintiffs as defendants-in-intervention. Basically, Groundswell Intervenors claimed that:

The “mandatory assignment of student intervenors, and others similarly situated, because of their race, to particular public schools within said District violates, and would violate, the rights of Intervenors and others similarly situated...”

— under the California Constitution, including the Due Process and Equal Protection Article, for racial discrimination against both parent and student intervenors;

— under the United States Constitution, including the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, for state action racially discriminating against both parent and student intervenors; and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (a) for infringing upon the liberty of parent intervenors to guide the destiny of their children, and (b) for infringing upon the liberty and privacy of student intervenors, by improper state action;

— under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for subjecting both parent and student intervenors to discrimination on the ground of race under a program and activity receiving federal financial assistance.