Jacobson v. Cincinnati Board of Education
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
961 F.2d 100 (1992)
- Written by Emily Laird, JD
Facts
The Cincinnati board of education (defendant) adopted a transfer policy aimed at ensuring its schools’ faculty members reflected districtwide racial balance. The policy required the transfer of teachers between school districts if the percentage of Black teachers in any school was 5 percent greater or less than the percentage of Black teachers throughout the school system. Eight teachers and their union (plaintiffs) sued the board of education in federal district court, alleging the transfer policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The teachers and union sought an injunction barring the policy, claiming a forced-transfer policy established race-based preferences that would fail under a court’s strict scrutiny. The board of education argued instead that the policy was permissible because it had no disparate impact on Black teachers. Further, the board of education argued that a court should review the racial classification with an intermediate level of scrutiny, which would require only that the court find that the classification served an important government objective. The district court found in favor of the board of education. The teachers and the union appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Norris, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
