the destiny of their children free from improper state action against them and their children, in violation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment;” and (C) infringed “upon the liberty and privacy of student intervenors by state action in violation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and Article [sic] IX.”

They made this additional constitutional claim (id., 47):

If ordered by the Court, it infringes upon the other branches of government and upon the rights of Intervenors to the governing participation concerning the District to which they are entitled, in violation of the guarantee of a republican form of government, under Article IV, Section 4, and of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Busing — Opposed lists Intervenors' other claims (id., 46-47), including those made under (A) the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and (B) a California statute providing for taxpayers' suits against unconstitutional governmental actions. The trial on the various claims is then depicted (id., 86-96).
 

Hypothetical Claims by
“Anti-Busing” Constituents
in School Districts Sued in Federal Court

Chapter 7, Busing — Opposed, hypothesizes claims (id., 106-107) to apply to the exercise of jurisdiction by a federal judge instead of a state judge.

Individual non-class constituents could claim that mandatory racial assignments subjected them to discrimination on the ground of race under a program receiving federal financial assistance in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (id., 106).

They could next claim (id., 107) under the United States Constitution that such assignments (A) infringed upon the liberty and privacy of student constituents; (B) infringed upon liberty of their parents to guide the destiny of their children, in violation of the Due Process of the 5th Amendment and