On December 8, 1965, the plaintiffs filed this school desegregation suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The plaintiffs, a group of African-American school minor children by and through their parents, brought suit against the defendant Franklin County Board of Education to enjoin the operation of a segregated school system. They were represented by, among others, Jack Greenberg and Derrick A. Bell (for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund). The United States intervened as a party on January 20, 1966.

Prior to the 1965-66 school year, the Franklin County school system was wholly segregated. Attempts in 1963 and 1964 to desegregate resulted in violence and threats. Beginning in the 1965-66 school year, the Board adopted a freedom of choice desegregation plan pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It became clear, however, that the Board had no interest in sincerely pursuing desegregation through this -- or any -- means, and the freedom-of-choice plan did little to alter the status quo.

After the lawsuit was filed, the district court (Judge Algernon Butler) heard the plaintiffs' motions for a preliminary and permanent injunction and began discussions with the Board on workable desegregation plans. The Board's use of freedom of choice plans continued through 1967 in the face of "marked hostility to school desegregation . . . and wide publicity [to] acts of intimidation, threats and reprisals against Negro parents who . . . requested reassignment of their children to previously all-white schools." Coppedge & United States v. Franklin County Board of Education, 273 F.Supp. 289, 295 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 21, 1967).

Finally, on August 21, 1967, after little progress, Judge Butler ordered the Board to submit a more comprehensive and specific plan for desegregation -- not based on freedom of choice -- for the 1968-69 school year. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court; in doing so, it noted the extent of the threats, intimidation and violence that had, up to then, marked the district's desegregation efforts. It admonished the Board for its woefully inadequate attempts at desegregation, concluding that the Board had done virtually "nothing." Coppedge & United States v. Franklin County Board of Education, 394 F.2d 410, 412 (4th Cir. Apr. 8, 1968).

In the summer of 1968, the district court ordered the Board to submit new desegregation plans for the 1968-69 school year. The Board, of course, applied for a stay pending appeal of those orders, claiming administrative difficulties. The district court rebuffed that argument. Surveying the situation, it concluded

The defendants' conduct in this case, including the submission of desegregation plans manifestly incompatible with the letter and spirit of the orders requiring their submission, is a reflection of the marked community hostility to desegregation which brought about the initial rejection by this Court and the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit of defendants' freedom of choice plan. It is now well settled, however, that community hostility to desegregation, even in the form of the probability or threat of white pupils fleeing from districts in which Negroes significantly outnumber them, does not provide a legal defense against desegregation.

Coppedge & United States v. Franklin County Board of Education, 293 F.Supp. 356, 363 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 22, 1968). The Fourth Circuit affirmed the decision. 404 F.2d 1177.

Through the 1970s and into the 1990s, the case remained fairly stagnant, with the Board submitting its annual reports. The district court issued two more orders in that period, in 1970 and 1978, modifying the desegregation plans. In 1996, however, the district court (at this point Judge James Fox) determined that the Board was not in compliance with several aspects of the previous orders. As a result, it entered a new order.

By 2002, the Board claimed that it had made sufficient progress to move for a dismissal of the case and a declaration of unitary status. Judge Fox granted that motion in part (declaring unitary status in areas such as school transportation, facilities and faculty desegregation) but denying it in others (notably, student assignment). In 2003 and 2005, the district court entered two more orders, updating the Board's plans relating to the areas of the case that remained open.

As of early 2017, the case remained on-going.

Available Opinions
Coppedge & United States v. Franklin County Board of Education, 273 F.Supp. 289 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 21, 1967)
Coppedge & United States v. Franklin County Board of Education, 394 F.2d 410 (4th Cir. Apr. 8, 1968)
Coppedge & United States v. Franklin County Board of Education, 293 F.Supp. 356 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 22, 1968)
Coppedge & United States v. Franklin County Board of Education, 404 F.2d 1177 (4th Cir. Dec. 5, 1968) (en banc)
Coppedge & United States v. Franklin County Board of Education, 345 F.Supp.2d 467 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 5, 2004) (dispute over attorneys’ fees)

Greg Margolis - 02/27/2017


compress summary