# Petition — Board of Education of Jefferson County v. Haycraft

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385005_2362%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Petition
- **Published:** January 1, 1979
- **Citation:** 443 U.S. 915

## Text

' urt, UL &
FILED

JAN 18 1979
MICHAEL -RODAK, JR., CLERK

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1978

No.

78-1131

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF JEFFERSON
COUNTY, KENTUCKY and

ERNEST C. GRAYSON, Superintendent - Petitioners

versas

JOHN E. HAYCRAFT, Et Al. - - Respondents
(Addition Respondents Inside Cover)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

JOHN A. FULTON
WILL H. FULTON

2510 First National Tower
Louisville, Kentucky 40202

Counsel for Petitioners, Board of
Education of Jefferson County,
Kentucky, and Ernest C. Gray-
son, Superintendent

WESTERFIELD-BONTE CO., 619 W. KENTUCKY—P.O. BOX 3251, LOUISVILLE, KY.

Additional Respondents:

Lyman Johnson, Richard Miller, Aaron Howard, John R.
Hughes, Theresa Black, John Schmidt, Earl Alluisi,
American Federation of Teachers, Louisville and Jeffer-
son County Federation of Teachers, Local 672, Newburg
Area Council, Inc., and Kentucky Human Relations
Commission

PAGE
PU Pica b eve wi veces cccccccccuns iii-iv
Petition for Writ of Certiorari.................... 1
Opinions and Orders Below....................005. 1- 2
eee 3
Statement of Questions Presented.................. 3
Constitutional Provision Involved.................. 4
Statement of the Case............... cc cece ences 4- 8
Reasons for Granting the Writ................... 9-24

I. The Method Used by the Court of Appeals to
Determine the Existence of a Violation is in
Conflict With Washington v. Davis and Dayton.11-12

II. Where No Finding of a Systemwide Incremental
Effect on Racial Distribution Has Been Made,
a Systemwide Remedy, Particularly for Very
Young Children, Cannot be Imposed Under This
Court’s Mandate in Dayton..............0005 13-16

III. Busing First Grade Children From 30 to 75
Minutes When First Grades are Presently Sub-
stantially Desegregated Raises Racial Balance
to the Level of a Substantive Constitutional
Right Contrary to Swamn................005: 16-20

IV. The Court of Appeals Has Disregarded the Self-
Limiting Nature of Busing Described in Swann
By Requiring Cross-District Transportation
That “Would Significantly Jeopardize the
ee dle 20-22

V. To Require an Additional Remedy Without
Reversing as Clearly Erroneous the Finding

*Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Separate Appen-
dix, p. 14.

ii

PAGE
That Such Remedy Would Adversely Affect
Children Disregards the Proper Allocation of
Judicial Functions Required in Swann and

Dayton viccvccccdvvessecccsvceseecsseves 23-24
| PPT TVPTIPTTTLER EC 25-26
Certificate of Bervicd...........c cece ceeccccceeees 27
DERI. 6 oo dvsccc(uavesnccveocectadeccecesve 29-31

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Federal Cases: PAGE
Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev.
Corg., GP U.. &, BG (1GTT) os icsNiveesesveunvin 9
Austin Independent School Dist. v. United States,
429 U. S. 990, 991 (1976) (Powell, J., concur-
WEES oi cd sa bee nubebese eee ineieae ed eens 9, 12, 22
Brinkman v. Gilligan (Dayton I), 503 F. 2d 684 (6th
BENS BOEEES wba Kes iS avade surekel sabe eienced sees 13, 15
Brinkman v. Gilligan (Dayton II), 518 F. 2d 853
CORR AE, GRO) sion binv eid vae/edank eiebasteeend 13, 15

Brinkman v. Gilligan (Dayton III), 539 F. 2a 1084
(6th Cir. 1976), vac. and remanded, 433 U.S. 406
6 Ee Pea ree Tee rere e Porn 12, 15, 25
Brinkman vy. Gilligan (Dayton IV), 583 F. 2d 243
(6th Cir. 1978), stay denied, Stewart, Cir. J., No.
A-212, U.S. (1978), 99 S. Ct. 27, stay
denied, Rehnquist, J., No. A-212, _.. U. S.
—_— (1978), 99 S. Ct. 28, cert. granted,
U.S, —— (1979), 47 U.S.L.W. 3463 (1-8-79)...10, 12,

15, 16, 25, 26

Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443 (1953). ...........4. 15
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka I, 347 U.S.

CE EE ir do ednwdel » Vas b0cnehawes ds kskaes 4

Columbus Board of Education v. Penick, __. U.. 8.
—__.. (1978), 99 S. Ct. 24, No. A-134, Rehnquist,
, ee rete CrP ey rere 9, 10, 25
Cunningham v. Grayson, 541 F. 2d 538 (6th Cir.
1976), cert. den, 429 U. S. 1074 (1977), pet. reh.
den., 430 U. S. 941 (1977), motion to file second

pet. reh. den., U.S. (1977), 98 S. Ct.

Ses = ree 2, 12, 14, 15, 16, 22, 25
Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman, 433 U. S.

. of). eee 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 21, 24, 25

Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430 (1968). 22

Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp.,
392 U. S. 481 (1968).......... jini suviabeties 15

iv
Federal Cases: (Cont’d)

Haycraft v. Bd. of Ed. of Jeff. Co., Ky., 585 F. 2d
ee | Benny res,” 2, 6, 8, 15, 16,
18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25

Hollenbach v. Haycraft, cert. den., ___ U. 8S. ~~

PAGE

eo OR Re a enor eae oe 12, 15
Hughes Tool Company v. Trans World Airlines,

ee eS Oe) ny erry oP 15
Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver, Colorado,

SAS: UE FOR Clos hathassvsouipcbadee saa 14
Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, 338 U. 8S. 912

(ZEIGE) 6:0 p bis b0h 06 hha saedne ee eesaeeanee 15
Mercer v. Theriot, 377 U. S. 152 (1964).......... 15
Milliken v. Bradley (Milliken I), 418 U. S. 717

COT OD 's kina dauetniaes 146660 «78 «= *17.0-—s—s« 28.8
OY See ge 8 99 14 231
SAR Riper petra: seats 13 188 86 28.8
BNR Ss ( avvcestiesbabial 11 140 72 214

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385005_2362%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.