Texarkana, TX 88° Sun H 89° L 68° Mon H 86° L 70° Tue H 85° L 72° Weather Sponsored By:

State filing seeks reversal of school-choice ruling including Hope

State filing seeks reversal of school-choice ruling including Hope

May 9th, 2019 by Arkansas Democrat-Gazette in Arkansas News

Prosecutors would have another sentencing option for first-time drunken drivers under a bill approved by the Senate Criminal Justice Committee Wednesday.

Photo by Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

Attorneys for the state want a federal appeals court to overturn lower-court decisions that keep students in the Hope, Junction City, Lafayette County and Camden Fairview school districts from attending schools in systems in which they don't reside.

A legal team led by Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge has sent written arguments to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, asking a panel of the court to reverse U.S. District Judge Susan O. Hickey's four Jan. 17 decisions that have the effect of disallowing interdistrict student transfers for the four districts.

In each of her January orders, Hickey approved modifying the terms of the four districts' decades-old desegregation orders and/or decrees "to explicitly prohibit the segregative interdistrict transfer of students ... to other school districts, unless such a transfer is requested for education or compassionate purposes."

[DOCUMENT: Read state's appeal brief]

The state attorneys argued to the appeals court, in documents submitted late Friday and made public this week, that Hickey's orders modifying the terms of the long-standing desegregation plans "violate ... bedrock legal principles" and "require reversal."

The state's appeal brief — including a request to present oral arguments to an 8th Circuit panel — is the latest development in a dispute that began in 2018 when representatives of the four districts told state education leaders that allowing Arkansas School Choice Act interdistrict student transfers would result in the "white flight" of students from their districts and would put the school systems in conflict with their federal court-ordered desegregation mandates.

The Arkansas Department of Education and the state Education Board, however, directed that — with a partial exemption for the Camden Fairview district — the districts had to allow School Choice Act transfers.

The districts complied but also filed motions in their federal desegregation cases asking Hickey to either declare the School Choice Act to be in conflict with their desegregation obligations or to direct that the districts' desegregation orders be altered to reflect the School Choice Act provisions.

As a result of Hickey's orders and subsequent denials to set aside her orders until there is a decision from the 8th Circuit, the state Education Department has exempted the districts from participating in School Choice Act students transfers for the coming 2019-20 school year.

The state's legal team of Nicholas Bronni, Dylan Jacobs and Ka Tina Guest argued to the 8th Circuit that Hickey's decision to modify the terms of the long-standing desegregation decrees incorrectly imposes an "interdistrict" remedy in cases that involve only "intradistrict" violations.

"Thus, in other words, absent a finding of an interdistrict violation — that is, a finding that officials segregated multiple districts along racial lines — a district court cannot order relief affecting more than one district," the state attorneys wrote. "Instead, in intradistrict cases that involve allegations of discriminatory conduct in a single district, a district court may only grant relief as to that particular district. The modification orders here violate that fundamental principle."

The state's attorneys called "illogical" Hickey's finding that modifications to the older cases did not constitute an interdistrict remedy but are a "minor intrusion" on districts other than the plaintiff districts.

"To reverse, this Court needs to hold only that prohibiting interdistrict students transfers is an interdistrict remedy," they wrote.

The state's attorneys also argued that Hickey's January orders violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution because her orders make the race of a student the sole factor in determining whether a child can exercise interdistrict school choice.

"The Supreme Court has made it clear that all government-imposed race discrimination is subject to strict scrutiny," the attorneys wrote. "While desegregation orders may serve a compelling government interest when imposed to remedy past ... segregation, the district court's modification orders were not entered for that reason. Rather than seeking to remedy any past wrongdoing, the district court imposed its race-based transfer restrictions in order to prevent future demographic changes based on private parental choices."

Attorneys for the Hope, Junction City, Lafayette County and Camden Fairview school districts are expected to respond in early June to the state's written arguments with their own written arguments in defense of Hickey's decisions.

"The districts continue to believe Judge Hickey's rulings are correct" and "will be upheld on appeal," attorney Whitney Moore said Wednesday. Moore and Allen P. Roberts of Camden are attorneys for the four districts.

Moore said Hickey's decisions are based on changes in the terms of the School Choice Act from 1989 to 2017.

"Judge Hickey correctly found that the repeal of the 1989 Act was a material change in circumstance that occurred since the Court last considered each of the districts' cases," Moore said in an emailed statement, "and the way to reconcile the districts' desegregation obligations with the changes in the school choice laws was to allow the districts to avail themselves of the option to obtain an exemption from participation, which the current school choice law expressly allows for districts with desegregation conflicts."

The state attorneys in their written arguments go into the histories of the individual districts' desegregation cases, the oldest of which is the Junction City case that goes back to 1966.

___

Information from Cynthia Howell at the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Arkansas Online.

Getting Started/Comments Policy

Getting started

  1. 1. If you frequently comment on news websites then you may already have a Disqus account. If so, click the "Login" button at the top right of the comment widget and choose whether you'd rather log in with Facebook, Twitter, Google, or a Disqus account.
  2. 2. If you've forgotten your password, Disqus will email you a link that will allow you to create a new one. Easy!
  3. 3. If you're not a member yet, Disqus will go ahead and register you. It's seamless and takes about 10 seconds.
  4. 4. To register, either go through the login process or just click in the box that says "join the discussion," type your comment, and either choose a social media platform to log you in or create a Disqus account with your email address.
  5. 5. If you use Twitter, Facebook or Google to log in, you will need to stay logged into that platform in order to comment. If you create a Disqus account instead, you'll need to remember your Disqus password. Either way, you can change your display name if you'd rather not show off your real name.
  6. 6. Don't be a huge jerk or do anything illegal, and you'll be fine.

Texarkana Gazette Comments Policy

The Texarkana Gazette web sites include interactive areas in which users can express opinions and share ideas and information. We cannot and do not monitor all of the material submitted to the website. Additionally, we do not control, and are not responsible for, content submitted by users. By using the web sites, you may be exposed to content that you may find offensive, indecent, inaccurate, misleading, or otherwise objectionable. You agree that you must evaluate, and bear all risks associated with, the use of the Gazette web sites and any content on the Gazette web sites, including, but not limited to, whether you should rely on such content. Notwithstanding the foregoing, you acknowledge that we shall have the right (but not the obligation) to review any content that you have submitted to the Gazette, and to reject, delete, disable, or remove any content that we determine, in our sole discretion, (a) does not comply with the terms and conditions of this agreement; (b) might violate any law, infringe upon the rights of third parties, or subject us to liability for any reason; or (c) might adversely affect our public image, reputation or goodwill. Moreover, we reserve the right to reject, delete, disable, or remove any content at any time, for the reasons set forth above, for any other reason, or for no reason. If you believe that any content on any of the Gazette web sites infringes upon any copyrights that you own, please contact us pursuant to the procedures outlined in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (Title 17 U.S.C. § 512) at the following address:

Copyright Agent
The Texarkana Gazette
15 Pine Street
Texarkana, TX 75501
Phone: 903-794-3311
Email: webeditor@texarkanagazette.com