The U.S. Supreme Court case Columbus Board of Education v. Penick in 1978 dealt with the issue of racial segregation in public schools within the Columbus, Ohio school district. The plaintiffs argued that despite the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling which declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students to be unconstitutional, de facto racial segregation was still prevalent in their district due to discriminatory practices such as gerrymandering school zones based on race and constructing new schools in predominantly white or black neighborhoods to maintain racial imbalance. The court ruled against the Columbus Board of Education, finding them guilty of intentional racial discrimination violating both the Equal Protection Clause under Fourteenth Amendment and Title IV Civil Rights Act by maintaining a segregated school system through various policies including student assignments, transportation schemes, faculty assignments etc., thereby affirmatively promoting segregation rather than merely permitting it. This landmark decision reaffirmed that not only were de jure (legally enforced) forms of segregation illegal but also any form of de facto (in practice) segregation resulting from actions taken by government bodies like local education boards.

In the dissenting opinion for Columbus Board of Education v. Penick, Justice Potter Stewart argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the school board had intentionally segregated schools in Columbus, Ohio. He believed that racial imbalance in a school district does not necessarily equate to de jure segregation and should not be enough to hold a district liable under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Furthermore, he contended that past discriminatory actions by individuals or groups cannot be used as proof of current intentional discrimination by an institution like a school board unless it is shown these past actions continue to have significant segregative effects today which could have been avoided with reasonable steps taken by said institution. In his view, this case did not meet such criteria and thus disagreed with imposing liability on the Columbus Board of Education.