81

93-1823-DISSENT

6 MISSOURI v. JENKINS

revenues to fund an operating budget which can provide
quality education, including a high quality faculty."
Jenkins, 672 F. Supp., at 410. Neither the State nor
the KCMSD objected to increases in teachers' salaries as
an element of the comprehensive remedy, or to this cost
as an item in the desegregation budget.

In 1988, however, the State went to the Eighth Circuit
with a broad challenge to the District Court's remedial
concept of magnet schools and to its orders of capital
improvements (though it did not appeal the salary
order), arguing that the District Court had run afoul of
Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U. S. 717 (1974) (Milliken I), by
ordering an interdistrict remedy for an intradistrict
violation. The Eighth Circuit rejected the State's
position, Jenkins, 855 F. 2d 1295, and in 1989 the State
petitioned for certiorari.

The State's petition presented two questions for
review, one challenging the District Court's authority to
order a property tax increase to fund its remedial
program, the other going to the legitimacy of the magnet
school concept at the very foundation of the Court's
desegregation plan:

"For a purely intradistrict violation, the courts
below have ordered remedies - costing hundreds of
millions of dollars-with the stated goals of attract-
ing more non-minority students to the school district
and making programs and facilities comparable to
those in neighboring districts . . . .

"The questio(n) presented (is) . . . .

". . . Whether a federal court, remedying an intra-
district violation under Brown v. Board of Educa-
tion, 347 U. S. 483 (1954), may

"a) impose a duty to attract additiional non-minori-
ty students to a school district and
"b) require improvements to make the district
schools comparable to those in surrounding dis-
tricts." Pet. for Cert. in Missouri v. Jenkins, O. T.