Weick, J., dissenting: “There is no provision in the Constitution which can be read as saying that the races must be mixed in each and every school in the system. . . ,”
How later courts described this case
- Weick, J., dissenting: “There is no provision in the Constitution which can be read as saying that the races must be mixed in each and every school in the system. . . ,”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WILLIAM E. MILLER, Circuit Judge
(concurring in the result).
I concur in the result reached by the Court in these appeals.
As I read the opinion of the Supreme Court in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 , 91 S.Ct. 1267 , 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971), where vestiges of state-imposed segregation still exist, the district courts have broad powers to fashion remedies that will assure a unitary school system.
A careful review of the record in this case indicates to me that the district judge was not only clearly justified in holding that vestiges of state-imposed segregation still existed in the Chattanooga system, but that he did not abuse his discretion in fashioning remedies within the precepts of the Swann decision. Since for these reasons I concur in the result, I do not feel committed to all of the language, reasons and conclu *853 sions set forth in the per curiam opinion of this Court or in the two opinions of Judge Wilson under review reported at 329 F.Supp. 1374 (E.D.Tenn., 1971) and 341 F.Supp. 193 (E.D.Tenn., 1972).