| Guey Heung Lee v. Johnson | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Decided August 25, 1971 | |
| Full case name | Guey Heung Lee, et al. v. David Johnson, et al. |
| Citations | 404U.S.1215 (more) 92 S. Ct. 14; 30L. Ed. 2d 19; 1971U.S. LEXIS 1458 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | On application for stay pending appeal |
| Holding | |
| The Court declined to issue a stay of a Federal District Court's order reassigning pupils of Chinese ancestry to elementary public schools in San Francisco. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Douglas, in chambers |
Guey Heung Lee v. Johnson, 404 U.S. 1215 (1971), was aUnited States Supreme Court case regarding thedesegregation of schools inSan Francisco.
In 1971, theSan Francisco Unified School District attempted to desegregate the school system by reassigning pupils attending segregated schools to other public schools. The School District submitted a comprehensive plan for desegregation, which theDistrict Court approved.
Brown v. Board of Education was not written for blacks alone. It rests on theEqual Protection Clause of theFourteenth Amendment, one of the first beneficiaries of which were the Chinese people of San Francisco.SeeYick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356. The theme of our school desegregation cases extends to all racial minorities treated invidiously by a State or any of its agencies.
Some Chinese parents protested the move, because in the Asian schools the students could learn about their cultural heritage, and they would lose this if they went to public schools.[1]
TheCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit entered a temporarystay pending a hearing in the District Court. Four days later, however, the Court of Appeals vacated that staysua sponte. The District Court then denied the stay. Thereupon, a different three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals heardoral argument on the motions for a stay, and denied those motions.
The Supreme Court too denied the stay, saying
So far as the overriding questions of law are concerned, the decision of the District Court seems well within bounds. It would take some intervening event or some novel question of law to induce me as Circuit Justice to overrule the considered action of my Brethren of the Ninth Circuit.