Borders v. Board of Education

Per Curiam. The present appeals represent the combination of two similar challenges to the redrawing of school district lines in Prince George’s County, Maryland. The complainants are the parents of school age children in the Cheverly and Radiant Valley sections of this county. They have alleged in petitions for declaratory and injunctive relief that through redistricting, their children, “solely because of their race,” are being transferred to different schools than they previously attended.

This redistricting by the Board of Education of Prince George’s County, they claim, is in violation of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, “Article 2, Maryland Declaration of Rights, 20 U.S.C., Section 884 , and Title IV ‘1964 Civil Rights Act,’ Sec. 601, et seq.” The appellees, the Board of Education and the Board of County Commissioners for Prince George’s County, responded to these allegations by way of demurrer and motions raising preliminary objec ²⁵⁸ tions claiming 1) that the laws of Maryland give the county board of education absolute authority to determine geographical attendance areas and 2) that the laws of the United States give a board of education the right to establish such attendance areas upon factors that include the racial balancing of pupils. Facing these narrow legal questions the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County (Dorsey, C.J., Powers and Meloy, JJ.) with Chief Judge Dorsey dissenting, ruled that the redistricting in question was constitutionally permissible and within the discretion vested in the Board of Education. The court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. In the second case, because of the identity of the parties and issues, Judge Powers granted motions raising preliminary objections.

We conclude that it was érror to dismiss the bills of complaint in both cases. These actions were brought under the Declaratory Judgment Act, Code (1957,1967 Repl. Vol.), Article 31A, and it is well settled in this State and elsewhere that the only place a demurrer has in declaratory judgment is to challenge the appropriateness of the remedy. Merc.-Safe Dep. & Tr. v. Reg. of Wills, 257 Md. 454 , 263 A. 2d 543 (1970); Garrett Co. v. Oakland, 249 Md. 400 , 240 A. 2d 228 (1968); Hunt v. Montgomery County, 248 Md. 403 , 237 A. 2d 35 (1968); Md. Committee v. Tawes, 228 Md. 412, n. 4 , 180 A. 2d 656 (1962); Reed v. Pres. of North East, 226 Md. 229 , 172 A. 2d 536 (1961); John B. Robeson v. Gardens, 226 Md. 215 , 172 A. 2d 529 (1961); Shapiro v. County Comm., 219 Md. 298 , 149 A. 2d 396 (1959); Case v. Comptroller, 219 Md. 282 , 149 A. 2d 6