Linda Stout, Etc., United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee v. Jefferson County Board of Education

Citations: 845 F.2d 1559; 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 7139; 1988 WL 45462Docket: 87-7516

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; May 27, 1988; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Plaintiffs, minor black schoolchildren from the recently annexed Dolomite area to Birmingham, Alabama, were previously assigned to attend schools in the Pleasant Grove attendance area of Jefferson County under a federal desegregation order since 1972. Following the annexation, they were reassigned to Birmingham's predominantly black schools, which led to a significant racial imbalance in the Pleasant Grove schools, now 94-97% white. Plaintiffs sought an injunction to remain in the Jefferson County school system but were denied relief by the district court, leading to this appeal.

The litigation originated in 1965 with a desegregation action for Jefferson County schools, culminating in a 1971 plan that assigned Dolomite's black students to Pleasant Grove schools, which are now integrated with a white-black ratio of 71%-29% to 80%-20%. In March 1987, part of Dolomite voted to annex to Birmingham, which provided improved municipal services but also shifted school jurisdiction. Under Alabama law, city school districts typically expand to include newly annexed areas. In June 1987, Jefferson County informed Dolomite parents that their children would face a $450 tuition fee to attend county schools, while Birmingham advised that the children would be enrolled in its system, which is predominantly black and no longer under federal oversight. The shift would further increase the racial disparity in Pleasant Grove schools, reinforcing the circuit court's decision to affirm the district court's denial of the plaintiffs' request.

In August, appellants sought a temporary restraining order and further relief to prevent Jefferson County from excluding them from Pleasant Grove schools until the Jefferson County School System was declared "unitary" and the annexations of Dolomite community were pre-cleared by the U.S. Attorney General. The district court acknowledged that the annexations would significantly impact school populations but denied relief, noting that the Birmingham schools assigned to the appellants were unitary despite their predominantly black student body. The court also found that the attendance changes were not caused by the Jefferson County Board of Education, which was adhering to its policy of assigning former county students to the annexing city's school system. 

Appellants argued that Dolomite students should not have been reassigned prior to federal preclearance, but this issue became moot when the Attorney General precleared the annexation. They also contended that the court had the power to ensure that changes in school boundaries did not hinder desegregation efforts, citing relevant case law. However, since their request would necessitate an interdistrict remedy, which requires proof of interdistrict violations, the court found their claims insufficient. Appellants pointed to Pleasant Grove's alleged discriminatory actions, including the refusal to annex Dolomite and the termination of fire services that led to fatalities, as evidence of an interdistrict violation. They referenced a Supreme Court case that characterized Pleasant Grove as a historically discriminatory, predominantly white enclave within a racially mixed area.

Appellants argue that Pleasant Grove's racially motivated refusal to annex Dolomite led to Dolomite students' displacement from Pleasant Grove schools, making them eligible for Birmingham schools instead. They claim this aligns with the relief standard from Milliken v. Bradley, asserting state actors altered the racial makeup of county schools due to discrimination. However, a critical flaw exists in their argument: they previously sought annexation to Birmingham, which was denied, and pursued annexation to other cities before finally being accepted by Birmingham. Therefore, the claim that they would have remained at Pleasant Grove schools if not for Pleasant Grove's refusal is unsubstantiated; without Birmingham's initial denial, they might not have sought Pleasant Grove annexation at all.

Appellants further contend that their relief request is intradistrict because it aims to uphold the original desegregation order for Jefferson County, despite affecting both Jefferson County and Birmingham schools. They reference Brown v. Board of Education of Bessemer, which involved delaying student entry into Bessemer schools after a recent annexation. However, the court finds significant differences between the Bessemer case and the current situation. In Bessemer, a court-approved integration plan was in place to close an all-black school and was supported by state funding, while the annexations stemmed from a prior lawsuit alleging racial discrimination in annexation efforts. The district court's decision mandated Bessemer to accept students from an annexed area while delaying others until adequate desegregated facilities were available, emphasizing the need to maintain a unitary system consistent with the desegregation plan.

Bessemer cannot accommodate the students from Parcel B without keeping Abrams High School open, which contradicts the court-approved desegregation plan and risks losing a crucial state consolidation grant. This grant is vital for Bessemer to improve its desegregated schools and move toward a unitary system. If Jefferson County retains the Parcel B students, Bessemer can close Abrams and use the grant to integrate those students into desegregated facilities within two to four years. The court determined that granting an injunction was within its equitable authority, emphasizing it imposed no burden on Jefferson County and was a temporary measure to ensure swift accommodation of all students within Bessemer's borders.

In contrast, the appellants' request for a similar injunction lacks justification, as the Birmingham school system is unitary and capable of accommodating Dolomite students, despite the unfortunate racial composition of the schools. The Bessemer case was a temporary solution, while the appellants seek a potentially permanent injunction that goes beyond the necessary reassignment until it does not dilute desegregation in Pleasant Grove schools. Additionally, establishing a rule from Bessemer to selectively recognize school annexations contradicts the principle of local control in public education, as highlighted in Milliken. Consequently, the district court's decision is affirmed.

States or political subdivisions seeking to implement new voting qualifications or procedures differing from those in effect as of November 1, 1964, must file an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment affirming that such qualifications do not deny or abridge voting rights based on race or color. Until a favorable judgment is obtained, individuals cannot be denied the right to vote based on these new qualifications. However, if the qualifications are submitted to the Attorney General without objection within 60 days, they may be enforced without a court proceeding.

In the context of the Jefferson County school system, while appellants argue it has not been declared unitary, a previous ruling (Stout v. Jefferson County Board of Education) affirmed that the dual school system was dismantled, though it allowed for continued scrutiny due to the existence of one-race schools. The court's position in Brown v. Board of Education of Bessemer emphasized that the Jefferson County school system's status remains under examination. Appellants are seeking a permanent injunction regarding student assignments, arguing against reassignments that might dilute desegregation efforts, but the Bessemer ruling does not support such a request. The principle established in Milliken underscores the importance of local control in public education and the reluctance to ignore school district boundaries for administrative convenience. Therefore, the district court's decision is upheld.

Honorable J. Smith Henley, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, is presiding over a case involving the City of Pleasant Grove, which was previously enjoined from operating its own school system. Appellants argue that any injunction should remain in effect until it is confirmed that the Jefferson County schools have achieved unitary status, contending that the Jefferson County system should continue to educate them to prevent any significant dilution of desegregation in Pleasant Grove schools.

The legal framework allows a state or political subdivision to seek a declaratory judgment from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia regarding voting qualifications enacted after November 1, 1964, asserting that such qualifications do not deny or abridge the right to vote based on race or color. Until such a judgment is made, individuals cannot be denied the right to vote for failing to meet these qualifications. However, qualifications may be enforced if submitted to the Attorney General without objection within 60 days.

Appellants maintain that the Jefferson County school system has not been declared unitary, while the appellees reference a prior ruling in Stout v. Jefferson County Board of Education, which declared the system unitary but acknowledged concerns about the existence of three one-race schools. Consequently, the court mandated continued supervision of the school system, which led to the statement in Brown v. Board of Education of Bessemer that the Jefferson County school system has not yet achieved unitary status.