Guey Heung Lee v. Johnson

{{Infobox SCOTUS case

|Litigants=Guey Heung Lee v. Johnson

|DecideDate=August 25

|DecideYear=1971

|FullName=Guey Heung Lee, et al. v. David Johnson, et al.

|USVol=404

|USPage=1215

|ParallelCitations=92 S. Ct. 14; 30 L. Ed. 2d 19; 1971 U.S. LEXIS 1458

|Prior=On application for stay pending appeal

|Subsequent=

|Holding=The Court declined to issue a stay of a Federal District Court's order reassigning pupils of Chinese ancestry to elementary public schools in San Francisco.

|Majority=Douglas, in chambers

|LawsApplied=

}}

Guey Heung Lee v. Johnson, 404 U.S. 1215 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the desegregation of schools in San Francisco.

In 1971, the San Francisco Unified School District attempted to desegregate the school system by reassigning pupils attending segregated schools to other public schools. The School District submitted a comprehensive plan for desegregation, which the District Court approved.

{{quote box|quote=Brown v. Board of Education was not written for blacks alone. It rests on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, one of the first beneficiaries of which were the Chinese people of San Francisco. See Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356. The theme of our school desegregation cases extends to all racial minorities treated invidiously by a State or any of its agencies.| source= Guey Heung Lee v. Johnson, 404 U.S. 1215 (1971), at 1216-1217| width = 25%| align = left}}

Some Chinese parents protested the move, because in the Asian schools the students could learn about their cultural heritage, and they would lose this if they went to public schools.{{cite book |title=Encyclopedia of Minorities in American Politics: African Americans and Asian Americans |last=Schultz |first=Jeffrey |year=2000 |publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group |isbn=1-57356-148-7 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WDV40aK1T-sC |page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=WDV40aK1T–sC&pg=PA274 274] |access-date=2009-05-17 }}

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit entered a temporary stay pending a hearing in the District Court. Four days later, however, the Court of Appeals vacated that stay sua sponte. The District Court then denied the stay. Thereupon, a different three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals heard oral argument on the motions for a stay, and denied those motions.

The Supreme Court too denied the stay, saying

{{blockquote|So far as the overriding questions of law are concerned, the decision of the District Court seems well within bounds. It would take some intervening event or some novel question of law to induce me as Circuit Justice to overrule the considered action of my Brethren of the Ninth Circuit.}}