Brief for Appellants in Nos. 2 (1,) and 3 and for Respondents in No. on Further Reargument (5 )

CHARLES L. BLACK JR.,
ELWOOD H. CHISOLM,
WILLIAM T. COLEMAN JR.,
CHARLES T. DUNCAN,
GEORGE E. C. HAYES,
LOREN MILLER,
WILLIAM R. MING JR.,
CONSTANCE BAKER MOTLEY,
JAMES M. NABRIT JR.,
DAVID E. PINSKY,
FRANK D. REEVES,
JOHN SCOTT,
JACK B. WEINSTEIN, of Counsel.
HAROLD BOULWAR,
ROBERT L. CARTER,
JACK GREENBERG,
OLIVER W. HILL,
THURGOOD MARSHALL,
LOUIS L. REDDING,,
SPOTTSWOOD W. ROBINSON III,
CHARLES S. SCOTT,
Attorneys for Appellants in Nos. 1, 2, 3 and for Respondents in No. 5.

Table of Contents

Preliminary Statement

Questions Involved

Developments in These Cases Since the Last Argument

The Kansas case

The Delaware case

The South Carolina case

The Virginia case

Argument

1. Answering Question 4: Only a decree requiring desegregation as quickly as prerequisite administrative and mechanical procedures can be completed will discharge judicial responsibility for the vindication of the constitutional rights of which appellants are being deprived
   1. Aggrieved parties showing denial of constitutional rights in analogous situations have received immediate relief despite arguments for delay more persuasive than any available here
   2. Empirical data negate unsupported speculations that a gradual decree would bring about a more effective adjustment
2. Answering Question 5: If this court should decide to permit an "effective gradual adjustment" from segregated school systems to systems not based on color distinctions, it should not formulate detailed decrees but should remand these cases to the courts of first instance with specific directions to complete desegregation by a day certain

Declaratory provisions

Time provisions

Conclusion