# Ruth Booker, an Infant, by Dovie Booker, Her Mother and Next Friend v. State of Tennessee Board of Education > Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · January 14, 1957 · 240 F.2d 689 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9445460 ## Case - **Full name:** Ruth BOOKER, an Infant, by Dovie Booker, Her Mother and Next Friend, Et Al., Appellants, v. STATE OF TENNESSEE BOARD OF EDUCATION Et Al., Appellees - **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit - **Decided:** January 14, 1957 - **Citations:** 240 F.2d 689; 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 5377 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Miller - **Judges:** Simons, Allen, Miller - **Cited by:** 18 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/9445460 ## Opinion text SHACKELFORD MILLER, Jr., Circuit Judge (dissenting). The majority opinion suggests different ways in which the physical and financial difficulties involved in immediate integration might be overcome at Memphis State College, and accordingly rejects the plan which does not accomplish that result. That, to me, is not the issue in the case. Admittedly, there may be different solutions to the problem. But if the plan proposed by the school authorities, which provides for partial elimination of segregation at the present time, and additional elimination in each succeeding year, and complete elimination over a period of five years, is a good-faith solution, even though requiring time, it is not to be rejected by the courts. The Supreme Court, in Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 , 75 S.Ct. 753 , 99 L.Ed. 1083 , stated the issue in pointing out that the school authorities “have the primary responsibility for elucidating, assessing, and solving these problems; courts will have to consider whether the action of school authorities constitutes good faith implementation of the governing constitutional principles”. 349 U.S. at page 299 , 75 S.Ct. at page 756 . The opinion further stated that the District Court can best perform this judicial appraisal. The District Judge in exercising the judicial appraisal so delegated to him by the Supreme Court found as facts that there was no effort or intention on the part of the State Board of Education to evade or circumvent the decision of the Supreme Court, that it had devised the proposed plan in good faith after consultation with advisory groups representing various segments of affected interests, that on account of the physical, financial and practical problems involved, which are given in detail in its findings, a gradual plan of desegregation offers greater possibility of eventual complete acceptance of the situation by members of both races than would an abrupt transition at present, and that time is absolutely nec *695 essary to carry out in an effective manner the ruling of the Supreme Court. The majority opinion concedes that the facts are not in controversy. Unless the District Judge abused his discretion in approving the plan proposed to meet the problems presented by such a factual background, we are not authorized to reject the plan in order to substitute a different plan of our own. That there are problems, practical as well as physical and financial, can hardly be denied. The District Judge, a long-time resident of Memphis, Tenn., and closely in touch with the local situation, is much better situated to understand, analyze and evaluate the problems than are we. As stated in Brown v. Board of Education, supra, 349 U.S. at page 300 , 75 S.Ct. at page 756 , that while there is a duty upon the school authorities to make a prompt and reasonable start toward full compliance with its ruling, “Once such a start has been made, the courts may find that additional time is necessary to carry out the ruling in an effective manner.” The District Judge expressly found that time was absolutely necessary to carry out the ruling in an effective manner. I am of the opinion that there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the District Judge and that the judgment should be affirmed. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9445460. Public record. Not legal advice.