# Moore v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

> Supreme Court of the United States · April 20, 1971 · 402 U.S. 47

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/108320

## Case

- **Full name:** MOORE Et Al. v. CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** April 20, 1971
- **Citations:** 402 U.S. 47; 91 S. Ct. 1292; 28 L. Ed. 2d 590; 1971 U.S. LEXIS 56
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Per Curiam
- **Cited by:** 80 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/108320

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding no “case or controversy” where both parties to the suit had.argued that the statute was constitutional and urged that a desegregation order be set aside
- stating that when "both litigants desire precisely the same result," there is "no case or controversy within the meaning of Art. III of the Constitution"
- finding “no case or controversy within the meaning of Art. III” where both parties agreed the law was constitutional and required setting aside a district court order
- holding that no Article III case or controversy exists where the parties to an action desire “precisely the same result”

## Opinion text

Per Curiam.
Appellants seek review of the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina declaring a portion of the North Carolina anti-busing statute unconstitutional, and enjoining its enforcement. It is a companion case to No. 498,
North Carolina State Board of Education
v.
Swann, ante,
p. 43. We postponed decision on the question of jurisdiction, 400 U. S. 803 (1970), and after hearing on the merits we now dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
At the hearing both parties argued to the three-judge court that the anti-busing law was constitutional and urged that the order of the District Court adopting the Finger plan should be set aside. We are thus confronted
*48
with the anomaly that both litigants desire precisely the same result, namely a holding that the anti-busing statute is constitutional. There is, therefore, no case or controversy within the meaning of Art. Ill of the Constitution.
Muskrat
v.
United States,
219 U. S. 346 (1911). Additionally, since neither party sought an injunction to restrain a state officer from enforcing a state statute alleged to be unconstitutional, 28 U. S. C. § 2281 , this is not an appeal from “any civil action, suit or proceeding required ... to be heard ... by a district court of three judges,” 28 U. S. C. § 1253 , and hence no direct appeal to this Court is available.
Dismissed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/108320. Public record. Not legal advice.