NCJ Number
141373
Journal
Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Volume: 14 Issue: 1 Dated: (Winter 1991) Pages: 112-119
Date Published
1991
Length
8 pages
Annotation
The case of Spallone v. United States is used to analyze the limits of judicial authority in dealing with constitutional issues.
Abstract
In the original case that gave rise to Spallone, the United States brought suit against the City of Yonkers, New York, and its community development agency for intentionally creating racially segregated housing in violation of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 and the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The City of Yonkers and the Yonkers Board of Education were also sued for acts that resulted in racial segregation of the city's public schools. In 1985, the City of Yonkers and the Board of Education were found liable for segregative conduct, and the district court asked defendants to devise remedies. The court-approved remedy for schools was a controlled choice plan, a mix between a mandatory and a voluntary plan to achieve desegregation. In the public housing aspect of the case, city council members refused to comply with the court order to desegregate. After reviewing the case, the U.S. Supreme court determined that if other remedies failed to force the city's compliance with the court order, individual sanctions against local legislators would be both proper and useful. The author concludes that when adjudicated constitutional and perhaps statutory violations exist as in the Spallone case, Federal courts have plenary authority to remake underlying institutions in order to eviscerate the effects of constitutional violations. In addition, courts should not shy away from their remedial role due to fear of infringing on local autonomy. 40 footnotes