opinion: CARTER et al. v. WEST FELICIANA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD et al.
  No. 944.
  Decided December 13, 1969
  See 419 F. 2d 1211.
  Richard B. Sobol, Murphy W. Bell, Robert F. Collins, Norman C. Amaker, and Melvyn Zarr for petitioners.
  Per Curiam.
  This matter reaches the Court on an application presented to Mr. Justice Black, as Circuit Justice for the Fifth Circuit, seeking a temporary injunctive order and other relief; and it appearing that
  1. Three cases were originally filed in 1965, seeking the desegregation of three Louisiana school districts.
  2. Pursuant to orders of the District Courts, in July of this year the Office of Education of the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare prepared and submitted terminal desegregation plans for each of the districts here involved for the school year 1969-1970. These plans were rejected by the District Courts.
  3. The District Courts’ orders were reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc, on December 1, 1969, subsequent to this Court’s decision in Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, ante, at 19. That court ordered respondent school boards and 13 other school boards to desegregate faculties completely and to adopt plans for conversion to unitary school systems by February 1, 1970, but authorized a delay in pupil desegregation until September 1970.
  4. On December 10,1969, petitioners filed in this Court a petition for a writ of certiorari, together with a motion to advance consideration of the petition and a motion for summary disposition, contending that the decision of the Court of Appeals is inconsistent with this Court’s decision in Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, supra. The relief sought on the merits is the implementation of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare plans for student assignment on or before February 1, 1970, simultaneous with the other steps ordered by the Court of Appeals.
  5. Petitioners, by this application seek a temporary injunctive order
  “requiring the respondent school boards, pending a decision by this Court on the merits, to take all necessary clerical and administrative steps — such as determining new student assignments, bus routes and athletic schedules and preparing for any necessary physical changes — preparatory to complete conversion under the HEW plans by February 1, 1970. If petitioners are successful, the administrative and clerical tasks necessary to conversion will have been undertaken roughly according to the timetable established by the court below in the Alexander cases, and petitioners’ right to effective relief will not have been put in question by the passage of time. If petitioners are unsuccessful in this Court, the school boards would be under no compulsion to convert during this school year.” Application to the Honorable Hugo L. Black, Circuit Justice for the Fifth Circuit, for a Temporary Injunctive Order 3-4. (Footnote omitted.)
  It is hereby adjudged, ordered, and decreed:
  (1) Petitioners’ application for a temporary injunc-tive order requiring the respondent school boards to take such preliminary steps as may be necessary to prepare for complete student desegregation by February 1, 1970, is granted. Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, supra.
  (2) By way of interim relief, and pending this Court’s disposition of the petition for certiorari, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated insofar as it deferred desegregation of schools until the school year 1970-1971.
  (3) By way of interim relief pending further order of this Court, the respondent school boards are directed to take no steps which are inconsistent with, or which will tend to prejudice or delay, a schedule to implement on or before February 1, 1970, desegregation plans submitted by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare for student assignment simultaneous with the other steps ordered by the Court of Appeals.
  (4) The respondents are directed to file any response to the petition herein on or before January 2, 1970.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.