noting that nothing in Milliken or Freeman suggests that a state court is precluded from correcting de facto segregation to carry out state policy
How later courts described this case
- noting that nothing in Milliken or Freeman suggests that a state court is precluded from correcting de facto segregation to carry out state policy
- importance of racial balance may preclude severance of sending-receiving relationship and could possibly require regionalization
- 5 Justices + 2 judges temporarily assigned
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the judgment below, including the order requiring a regionalization study, substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Long’s comprehensive opinion reported at 257
N.J.Super.
413 , 608 A.2d 914 (1992). We are satisfied that such a study is authorized under the broad powers vested in the State Board of Education. As the Appellate Division noted, “[I]t is hard for us to imagine any reasonable person challenging the power of the Board to ‘study’ an issue committed to its overall authority.”
Id.
at 482, 608 A.2d 914 .
In reaching that conclusion we find it unnecessary to consider whether the State Board of Education has the authority to require regionalization in this ease or whether a court may require regionalization as a judicial remedy. We neither express nor imply any position or opinion on the regionalization issue itself, and specifically emphasize that our affirmance of the authority of the State Board of Education to undertake such a regionalization study must not be taken to express or imply any view of the Court on the administrative or judicial power to require inter-district regionalization.
*330
For affirmance
— Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, O’HERN and STEIN and Judges MICHELS and KING — 7.
Justices POLLOCK and GARIBALDI did not participate.