Upon the drafting of the complaint in intervention, Lawyer reviews the successful intervention motion by the "Groundswell" group and includes two similar points to be presented in the Committee's authorities, revised in the following manner:

Point 1: Movants have a Constitutional Right to Intervene in an Action in Which Their Interests are Unconstitutionally Impaired.

The interest of the parent movants and their children at issue here are, to quote Justice Powell in his concurring opinion in Austin Independent School District v. United States, 429 U.S. 990, 995 (Fn.7) (1976) "as personal and important as any in our society. They relate to the family, and to the concern of parents for the welfare and education of their children — especially those of tender age. Families share these interests wholly without regard to race, ethnic origin or economic status." He also expressed a matter of great concern to parents and children not separately represented in desegregation cases: "It also is to be remembered, in granting equitable relief, that a desegregation decree is unique in that its burden falls not upon the officials or private interests responsible for the offending action but, rather, upon innocent children and parents." Ibid.

Movants contend their interests are those of real parties in interest on the issue of mandatory assignments of movant students in the area of pupil assignment. As such, they are entitled to be heard, as parties, on that issue when they are able to present it, during the period such assignments continue, in the Court mandating them.

Due process requires, at a minimum, that parties whose rights are being affected are entitled to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 550, 552 (1965).

Such an opportunity to be heard is vital to movants because they can raise a wide range of objections