Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Missouri v. Jenkins (Jenkins III)

United States Supreme Court
515 U.S. 70 (1995)


Facts

The Kansas City, Missouri, School District (the district) (plaintiff) and a group of students (plaintiff) sued Missouri (defendant) in 1977 for maintaining a segregated school system in violation of Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). The federal district court realigned the school district as a defendant in the case and held that the state and district had violated Brown. The court ordered the district to make every high school and middle school, as well as half of the elementary schools, magnet schools for specific topics, such as foreign language or math and sciences. The district was also ordered to spend $260 million on capital improvements, including closing certain schools, renovating others, and building new facilities. The court hoped that such changes would encourage white students to re-enter the public school system while providing minorities with a quality education. The U.S. Supreme Court initially concluded in Jenkins II, 495 U.S. 33 (1990), that the district court should have enjoined state tax laws that interfered with the district’s compliance with Brown, rather than order an increase in local property taxes. Subsequently, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed two remedial issues.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Rehnquist, C.J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Concurrence (Thomas, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Ginsburg, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Souter, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.