High Court Rejects Argument
by Crawford Counsel

In a portion of its decision affirming Crawford II, the Supreme Court used language that reflected more favorably upon our proposed argument to the San Bernardino Superior Court than Crawford counsel made earlier to that court, and renewed before the high court. Justice Powell stated:

... We agree with the California Court of Appeal in rejecting the contention that once a State chooses to do “more” than the Fourteenth Amendment requires, it may never recede. We reject an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment so destructive of a State’s democratic processes and of its ability to experiment. This interpretation has no support in the decisions of this Court... Crawford III. 458 U.S. at 535. [Emphasis added]
 

At Time of Crawford III Decision
Carlin Plaintiffs Have Appeals Pending from
Carlin Court’s Failure to Order Busing Appeal
from October 2, 1979 Order re: Integration Plan

Just before our trial, I had received on July 10, 1981, the opening brief of the Carlin plaintiffs on their appeal from the Integration Order of October 2, 1979. Part II of their brief (pp.148-172) was devoted to their claim it was error to omit a busing segment from the order, as is evident from its caption:

The Trial Court Erred in Failing to Order the Board to Develop and Implement an Effective Desegregation Plan on the Basis That a Mandatory Pupil Reassignment Program Would Cause a Substantial Loss of Middle Class Students.