Per Curiam.
Appellant Negro school children brought this action in the Federal District Court to enjoin appellee school officials from making any distinctions based upon race or color in providing educational facilities for School District No. 22, Clarendon County, South Carolina. As the b'asis for their complaint, appellants alleged that equal •facilities are not provided for Negro pupils aAd that those constitutional and statutory provisions of South Carolina requiring separate schools “for children of the white and' colored races” are-invalid under the. Fourteenth Amendment. At the trial before a court of; three judges, appellees conceded that the school facilities provided for Negro students “are not substantially equal to those afforded in the District for white pupils.”
The District Court held, one judge dissenting, that the challenged constitutional and statutory provisions were' not of themselves violative of the Fourteenth, Amendment. The court below also found that the educational facilities afforded by appellees for Negro pupils are not equal to those provided for white children. The District Court did not issue an injunction abolishing racial dis- . tinetions as prayed by appellants, but did order appellees to proceed at once to furnish educational facilities for Negroes .eqüal.tó-those furnished white pupils. In its decree, entered June 21, 1951, the District Court ordered that appellees report to that court within six months as to action taken by them to carry out the court’s order. 98 F. Supp. 529.
Dissatisfied with the relief granted by the District Court, appellants brought a timely appeal directly to this Court under 28 U. S. C. (Supp. IV) § 1253. After the appeal was docketed but before its consideration by this .Court, appellees filed in the court below their report as ordered.
The District Court has not given its views on this report, having entered an order stating that it will withhold further action thereon while the cause is pending in this Court on appeal. Prior to our consideration of the questions raised on this appeal, we should have the benefit of the views of the District Court upon the additional facts brought to the attention of that court in the report which it ordered. The District Court should also be afforded the opportunity to take whatever action it may deem appropriate in light of that report. In order that this may be done, we-vacate the judgment of the District Court and remand the case to that court for further pro-. ceedings. Another judgment, entered at the conclusion of those proceedings, may provide the basis for any further appeals to this Court.
■It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas dissent to vacation of the judgment of the District Court on the grounds stated. They believe that the additional facts contained in the report to the District Court are wholly irrelevant to the constitutional questions presented by the appeal to this Court, and that we should-note jurisdiction and set the case down for argument.
S. C. Const., Art. XI, § 7; S. C. Code, 1942, § 5377.
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.