United States v. Junction City Sch. Dist.

14 F.4th 658

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee

v.JUNCTION CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT; R.L. Bolen, Superintendent of the Junction City School District No. 75; Junction City School Board, Defendants - Appellees

v.Arkansas Department of Education; Arkansas State Board of Education, Intervenors - Appellants

Brittany Harrison ; Katelyn Williams ; Lance Harrison; Chase Williams ; Chasity Klutts; Sarah McCoy ; Cole McCoy, Amici on Behalf of Appellant(s)

Rosie L. Davis, Plaintiff - Appellee

v.William Dale Franks, Defendant - Appellee

v.Arkansas Department of Education; Arkansas State Board of Education, Intervenors - Appellants

Mary Turner, Individually and as next friend of Torrance Turner, a minor; Lucy Cheatham, Individually and as next friend of Andrew Cheatham, a minor; Mary Rose, Individually and as next friend of Victor Rose ; Obie Sasser, Individually and as next friend of Frank Sasser, a minor; Barbara Dudley, Individually and as next friend of Kerri Dudley, a minor; Ida Dudley, Individually and as next friend of Tia Dudley; Rosie Blair, Individually and as next friend of Kimberly Blair, a minor; Johnny Blair, Individually and as next friend of Kimberly Blair, a minor; Robert Wise, Individually and as next friend of Valarie Wise, a minor; Mildred Thompson, Individually and as next friend of Kelona Thompson, a minor, Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.Lafayette County School District, Defendant - Appellee

Larry Hudson, Individually and in his official capacity as Superintendent of Schools for the Lewisville School District No. 1, A Public Body Corporate; Hollis Sasser, Individually and in his official capacity as President of the Board of Education of the Lewisville School District No. 1, A Public Body Corporate; Harry Smith, Individually and in his official capacity as member of the Board of Education of the Lewisville School District No. 1, A Public Body Corporate; Leslie Nutt, Individually and in his official capacity as member of the Board of Education of the Lewisville School District No. 1, A Public Body Corporate; Steve Groves, Individually and as member of the Board of Education of the Lewisville School District No. 1, A Public Body Corporate; Carolyn Moss, Individually and as member of the Board of Education of the Lewisville School District No. 1, A Body Corporate; Johnny Ross, Individually and as member of the Board of Education of the Lewisville School District No. 1, A Body Corporate, Defendants

v.Arkansas Department of Education; Arkansas State Board of Education, Intervenors - Appellants

Larry Milton, on behalf of Himself and Infants Shanna Milton and Shana Milton, by next friend Shanna Milton, by next friend Shana Milton; Willie D. Harris, Dr.; on Behalf of Himself and Infant Mark Neil, by next friend Mark Neil; Bobbie Ray Cheeks, on Behalf of Infant Bobbie Ray, Jr., by next friend Bobbie Ray, Jr., Plaintiffs - Appellees

Lee Nayles, Dr.; on Behalf of Himself and Infant Jon Nayles, by next friend Jon Nayles, Plaintiff

Terry Alexander, Plaintiff - Appellee

v.Bill Clinton, Governor of the St. of AR; Individually, Defendant

Arkansas State Board of Education; Arkansas State Board of Education, Defendants - Appellants

Jeff Starling, Member, Arkansas State Board of Education; Earle Love, Member, Arkansas State Board of Education; Robert L. Newton, Member, Arkansas State Board of Education; L. D. Harris, Member, Arkansas State Board of Education; Harry P. McDonald, Member, Arkansas State Board of Education; Alice L. Preston, Member, Arkansas State Board of Education; Elaine Scott, Member, Arkansas State Board of Education; Walter Turnbow, Member, Arkansas State Board of Education; Nancy Wood, Member, Arkansas State Board of Education; Camden, AR School District No. 35, The Board of Education of the, A Public Body Corporate; Camden, AR Housing Authority, The Board of Directors of the, A Public Body Corporate; Camden, AR, City of, A Public Body Corporate; Harmony Grove, AR School District, The Board of Education of the, A Public Body Corporate; Burton Burton, Director, Arkansas Department of Education, Defendants

v.Camden, AR Fairview School District, A Public Body Corporate, Defendant - Appellee

No. 19-1340

No. 19-1342

No. 19-1348

No. 19-1349

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: June 17, 2021

Filed: August 25, 2021

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied November 8, 2021

Counsel who represented the appellants was KaTina Hodge-Guest, AAG, of Little Rock, AR., Nicholas J. Bronni, AAG, of Little Rock, AR., and Dylan L. Jacobs, AAG, of Little Rock, AR.

Counsel who represented the appellee, United States of America, in case 19-1340, was Bonnie I. Robin-Vergeer, USDOJ, of Washington, D.C., and Anna M. Baldwin, USDOJ, of Washington, D.C.

Counsel who represented appellees R.L Bolen, Junction City School Board and Junction City School District in 19-1340, appellees Rosie L. Davis and William Dale Franks in 19-1342, appellees Johnny Blair, Rosie Blair, Lucy Cheatham, Barbara Dudley, Ida Dudley, Lafayette County School District, Mary Rose, Obie Sasser, Mildred Thompson, Mary Turner and Robert Wise in 19-1348, and appellees Terry Alexander, Camden AR Fairview School District, Bobbie Ray Cheeks, Willie D. Harris, and Larry Milton in 19-1349, was Whitney F. Moore, of Camden, AR., and Shawn G. Childs, of Little Rock, AR.

Before ERICKSON, MELLOY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Four school districts in Arkansas sought modification of decades-old desegregation orders so that they could be exempt from a newly passed Arkansas school-choice law. The district court granted the school districts’ motions and modified the desegregation orders to explicitly limit the transfer of students between school districts. The Arkansas Department of Education appealed, alleging that the modifications were improper.

Our panel previously affirmed the district court's modifications. The Arkansas Department of Education then moved for rehearing, at which point the United States—for the first time—involved itself in the case and asked us to reconsider our opinion. We accepted the invitation, received supplemental briefing from all of the parties, and now reverse the judgment of the district court.

I. BACKGROUND

We first provide background regarding the four desegregation orders at issue in this case. We then discuss how the law in Arkansas regarding school choice has changed over the years to bring us to this point in the proceedings.

A. Desegregation Orders

1. Junction City School District

In 1966, the United States sued Junction City School District ("Junction City"), alleging that it was operating an unconstitutional, racially segregated school system. Junction City had a dual system, comprised of one set of schools for black children (the Rosenwald schools) and another set of schools for white children (the Junction City schools). In response to the lawsuit, Junction City adopted a "freedom of choice" plan, that allowed parents to choose to send their children to either the Rosenwald schools or the Junction City schools. Shortly thereafter, the Supreme Court handed down Green v. County School Board, 391 U.S. 430, 88 S.Ct. 1689, 20 L.Ed.2d 716 (1968), which made clear that schools had an "affirmative duty" to "eliminate[ ]" racial discrimination "root and branch." Id. at 437–38, 88 S.Ct. 1689. Following Green, it was plain that Junction City had an affirmative duty to eliminate the effects of its prior unconstitutional dual school system and that a freedom of choice plan was insufficient if it did not eliminate the racial segregation caused by the school district.

In response to this clear mandate, Junction City closed the Rosenwald schools and provided additional classrooms at the Junction City schools. It did so by adding portable buildings to the existing facilities. In 1970, Junction City was still operating segregated classes—with black children attending classes in the portable buildings and white children attending classes in the permanent facilities. The United States once again moved the district court to enjoin Junction City's discriminatory practices, specifically alleging racially discriminatory (1) class assignments, (2) bus routes, and (3) disciplinary treatment. The district court issued an order in response, which still governs Junction City today ("the 1970 order").

The 1970 order found that Junction City was segregating classes on the basis of race. Based on these findings, the district court enjoined Junction City from continuing its discriminatory class assignments and ordered Junction City "to take immediate steps to reassign students to homerooms and individual classes on a non-racial and non-discriminatory basis."

The district court also found that Junction City had taken "no steps" since the court's prior order "to desegregate [its] transportation routes." Instead, with one exception, "[b]lack bus drivers transport[ed] only black students and white bus drivers transport[ed] only white students." It found that the "[w]hite and black bus routes [were] overlapping and duplicative." The court enjoined Junction City from continuing to operate discriminatory bus routes and ordered that it "immediately redraw [its] bus routes and reassign students to the busses on a non-racial basis."¹

Notably, the 1970 order says nothing about other school districts or transfer students.

2. Hope School District No. 1A

In 1988, a group of plaintiffs filed suit against various officials at the Hope School District No. 1A ("Hope"), alleging that (1) Hope discriminated against black staff and students and (2) its at-large system for electing school-board members violated the Voting Rights Act. The plaintiffs sought "an injunction against the defendants’ continuation of racial discrimination in any and all of its school operations, including faculty assignments, student assignments and student treatment within the school system." They also sought an injunction against the "continued use of an at-large election system for school board positions in [t...