Keyes v. School District No. 1
United States Supreme Court
413 U.S. 189 (1973)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
In 1969, the Denver, Colorado, public school district (defendant) consisted of 119 schools with almost 100,000 students. The school district served primarily White, Black, and Hispanic students. The school district built a new, small elementary school in a predominately Black neighborhood in the Park Hill area. Due to gerrymandered student-attendance zones, optional zones, and the excessive use of mobile classroom units, Park Hill schools were attended primarily by Black students. Wilfred Keyes, a district parent, and others (collectively, Keyes) (plaintiffs) sued the school district, arguing that the entire school district was unlawfully segregated and seeking desegregation of multiple schools within the district. The district court found that the school district had deliberately segregated the Park Hill schools and ordered desegregation of those schools. However, the district court also ruled that Keyes would need to prove deliberate segregation in each part of the school district before the court would order desegregation in the other schools. The Tenth Circuit affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brennan, J.)
Concurrence (Douglas, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Powell, J.)
Dissent (Rehnquist, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 788,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 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.