North Little Rock, AK Board of Education v. Davis Brief in Opposition
Public Court Documents
January 1, 1981

Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. North Little Rock, AK Board of Education v. Davis Brief in Opposition, 1981. e2c5b3de-bf9a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/5703e029-5cbe-4466-9829-52fd7f8f0a24/north-little-rock-ak-board-of-education-v-davis-brief-in-opposition. Accessed July 16, 2025.
Copied!
No. 81-2316 I n the i ’upnmtr Gkwrt of tljp $nttpi& IhatPis October T eem, 1981 T he Board oe Education oe the N orth L ittle R ock, A rkansas, School District, et ah, Petitioners, v. R obert J. Davis and L obene Joshua, Respondents, on p e t it io n for a w r it of certio rari to t h e u n it e d states COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT BRIEF IN OPPOSITION Jack Greenberg James M. N abrit, I I I B ill L ann L ee* T heodore M. Shaw Suite 2030 10 Columbus Circle N ew York , New Y ork 10019 (212) 586-8397 John W. W alker Suite 119 F irs t National Bank Build ing L ittle Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 374-3758 Attorneys for Respondents * Counsel o f Record TABLE OF CONTENTS Page STATEMENT ............................................. 1 The Current P roceed ings ........................ 1 The P r i o r H i s t o r y o f the Case . . . . . . 5 REASONS TO DENY THE WRIT ...................... 9 CONCLUSION .................................................... 15 l TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Board o f Educat ion o f North L i t t l e Rock, Arkansas, School D i s t r i c t v. Davi s , 50 U.S.L.W. 3272 (1981) .......................................................... 9 Columbus Board o f Educat ion v. Penick, 433 U.S. 499 ( 1 979 ) .............................. 13 Davis v. Board o f Educat ion o f North L i t t l e Rock, Arkansas, School D i s t r i c t , 328 F. Supp. 1197 (E.D. Ark. 1971) ................... 6 Davis v. Board o f Educat ion o f North L i t t l e Rock, Arkansas, School D i s t r i c t , 449 F.2d 500 (8th C i r . 1971) (en banc) ................... 6 Davis v. Board o f Educat ion o f North L i t t l e Rock, Arkansas, School D i s t r i c t , 362 F. Supp. 730 (E.D. Ark. 1 973 ) .............................. .. 6 Davis v. Board o f Educat ion o f North L i t t l e Rock, Arkansas, School D i s t r i c t , 635 F.2d 730 (8th C i r . 1980), c e r t , d e n i e d , 50 U.S.L.W. 3272 (1 981 ) ............ 6,7 Davis v. Board o f Educat ion o f North L i t t l e Rock, Arkansas, School D i s t r i c t , 520 F. Supp. 108 (E.D. Ark. 1981 ) .................................... 6 - i i - Page Paqe Davis v. Board o f Educat ion o f North L i t t l e Rock, Arkansas, School D i s t r i c t , 674 F.2d 684 (8th C i r . 1 982 ) .......................... ....................... 6 F lax v. P o t t s , 313 F.2d 284 (5th C i r . 1 963 ) ........... ...................................... 14 Graves v. Board o f Educat ion o f North L i t t l e Rock, Arkansas, School D i s t r i c t , 299 F. Supp. 843 (E.D. Ark. 1 969) ................................................. 6 Green v. School Board o f New Kent County, 391 U.S 430 ( 1 968) ............... 12 Keyes v. School D i s t r i c t No. 1, 413 U.S. 1 89 ( 1 973 ) ................... ................... 13 Lee v. Macon County Board o f Educat ion, 584 F . 2d 78 (5th C i r . 1 978 ) ............. 14 Pasadena C i t y Board o f Educat ion v. Spang ler , 427 U.S 424 (1976) ........... 14 Raney v. Board o f Educat ion, 391 U.S. 443 ( 1 968 ) .................................................. 12 Rogers v. Paul , 382 U.S 198 (1965) ......... 3,14 Swann v. Char lo t t e -Meck lenburg Board o f Educat ion, 402 U.S 1, ( 197 1 ) ........... .. 13 United S ta t e s v. S ta te o f Texas, 509 F . 2d 192 (5th C i r . 1 975 ) ___________ 14 i n Page United S ta t e s v. Texas Educat ion Agency, 647 F.2d 504 .(5th C i r . 1981) .............................. ......................... 12 Youngblood v. Board o f P u b l i c I n s t r u c t i o n , 448 F.2d 770 (5th C i r . 1971) ............... ............ .............. .. 14 S ta tu t es and Rules Redera l Rule o f C i v i l Procedure 23 . . 3,10 IV No. 81-2316 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES . October Term, 1981 THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE NORTH LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, SCHOOL DISTRICT, e t a l . , P e t i t l o n e r s , v. ROBERT J. DAVIS and LORENE JOSHUA, Respondents. On P e t i t i o n f o r a Wri t o f C e r t i o r a r i t o The Uni ted S ta t e s Court o f Appeals For The Eighth C i r c u i t BRIEF IN OPPOSITION STATEMENT The Current P roceedings The most r e c e n t p r o c e e d i n g s in t h i s s c h o o l d e s e g r e g a t i o n case i n v o l v i n g the p u b l i c s c h o o l s o f N o r t h L i t t l e R o c k , 2 A r k a n s a s w e r e i n i t i a t e d by t h e s c h o o l boa rd ' s motion to r e v i s e the court approved d e s e g r e ga t i on p lan to enable the board to c l o s e one o f i t s s c h o o l s . Over r e s p o n d en t s ' o b j e c t i o n s , both courts below upheld the b o a r d ' s r i g h t t o make the r e q u e s t e d changes on the me r i t s , wh i l e r e j e c t i n g the boa rd ' s arguments that respondent had no s t a n d i n g t o c o n t e s t the m o d i f i c a t i o n o f the court approved des e g r e ga t i on plan and tha t u n i t a r y s ta tus had been ach ieved when t h e d e s e g r e g a t i o n p l a n was i n i t i a l l y implemented in 1972. Respondent has not sought r ev i ew o f the unfavorab le d e c i s i o n below. Thus the case presents the anomalous s i t u a t i o n o f a school board, the success f u l p a r t y below, seeking re v i ew o f a d e c i s i on which rul ed in the board ' s f a v o r on the me r i t s . - 3 - The p e t i t i o n p r e s e n t l y b e f o r e t h i s Court steins from a motion f i l e d on May 22, 1981 by the board s e e k i n g a p p r o v a l o f a p lan t o c l o s e a d i s t r i c t - w i d e seventh grade c e n t e r a t f o r m e r l y b l a c k C e n t r a l J u n i o r High Schoo l . P l a i n t i f f - i n t e r v e n o r Lorene Joshua unsucces s fu l l y opposed t h i s motion on the grounds tha t the proposed c l o s i n g would impose d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n burdens on black students and cont inue an i l l e g a l p o l i c y o f d i s c r i m i n a t o r i l y c l o s ing educa t i ona l f a c i l i t i e s in black areas. The board a l s o r e i t e r a t e d arguments made 1/ p r e v i o u s l y that Mrs. Joshua- lacked s tand ing t o cont es t the c l o s i n g o f the seventh ]_/ The a c t i o n was o r i g i n a l l y f i l e d by C o rn e l l Graves as a c l a s s a c t i on pursuant to Fed. R. C i v . P. 23 (a ) and ( b ) ( 2 ) . A l though a c la ss has never f o rm a l l y been c e r t i f i e d the courts below have t r e a t e d th i s l i t i g a t i o n as a c l a s s a c t i on . The d i s t r i c t court and the court o f appeals have p e r m i t ted l i b e r a l s u b s t i t u t i o n o f p l a i n t i f f s . C f . Rogers v. P a u l , 382 U.S. 198 (1965) . On 4 grade c en t e r because none o f her c h i l d r e n a t t e n d e d t h a t g r a d e in 1981 and t h a t u n i t a r y s ta tus in e f f e c t had been ach ieved long ago so that j u d i c i a l supe r v i s i on was unnecessary. The d i s t r i c t court found i t s u f f i c i e n t t h a t she c u r r e n t l y had t h r e e c h i l d r e n in t h e s c h o o l s y s t e m , in t h e second, f i f t h and t enth grades. Cont inuing j u r i s d i c t i o n was found. P l a i n t i f f - i n t e r - venor Joshua appealed the c l o s i n g o f the cen te r , The Cour t o f A p p e a l s a f f i r m e d . The c o u r t a l s o s t a t e d t h a t i t c l e a r t h a t p l a i n t i f f had s tanding "wi th regard to the e n t i r e d e s eg r ega t i on s u i t " and that there _1_/ cont inued A p r i l 22, 1977, the d i s t r i c t court a l l owed Lorene Joshua, as mother and next f r i e n d o f f ou r c h i l d r e n e n r o l l e d in the North L i t t l e Rock p u b l i c schoo l s , t o be su b s t i tu t ed f o r Rober t J. Dav is , who had moved away from N o r th L i t t l e Rock. D a v i s had su cc eed ed Graves, whose c h i l d r e n had e a r l i e r g rad uated from the system. 5 was no need f o r p u p i l s in e a ch g r a d e l e v e l t o be p l a i n t i f f s . The court found t h a t a c a s e o r c o n t r o v e r s y s u f f i c i e n t t o s a t i s f y the A r t i c l e I I I r e q u i r e m e n t cont inued t o e x i s t u n t i l the d i s t r i c t court determined that a un i t a ry system o f educa t i o n had been achieved in compl iance with the p r i o r court o rde rs . The P r i o r H i s t o r y o f the Case The board f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r c e r t i o r a r i r a i s i n g the same ques t i ons in 1981, No. 80-1 83 1 , and t h i s Court denied i t on O c t o b e r 13, 1981. 50 U . S . L . W . 3272. Because the case i n v o l v e s an e f f o r t t o r e l i t i g a t e mat ters p r e v i o u s l y dec ided in e a r l i e r p roceed ings we se t f o r t h below a b r i e f h i s t o r y o f the case. T h i s d e s e g r e g a t i o n a c t i o n was i n i t i a t e d in 1968 by black students and t h e i r p a r e n t s . I n 1969 t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t 6 en jo in ed the board from f u r t h e r ma in ta in ing i t s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l dual schoo l system and o r d e r e d r e l i e f . G ra ve s v. Board o f E d u c a t i o n o f N o r th L i t t l e Rock, Arkansas , S c h o o l D i s t r i c t , 299 F. Supp. 843 (E .D. 2/ A rk . 1 969 ) . i n 1971, the E i g h t h C i r c u i t o r d e r e d i m p l e m e n t a t i o n d u r in g the 1 972-73 school year o f a plan which would d e s e g r e g a t e s c h o o l s , f a c u l t y and s t a f f . Davis v. Board o f Educat ion o f North L i t t l e 2_/ T h i s l i t i g a t i o n has p r o d u c e d f i v e r epo r t ed op in ions in the d i s t r i c t court , t h r e e in the c o u r t o f a p p e a l s , and one d e n i a l o f a p e t i t i o n f o r c e r t i o r a r i in t h i s C o u r t : Grave s v . Board o f E d u c a t i o n o f No r t h L i t t l e R o c k ,__Arkansas ,__S c h o o l D i s t r i c t , 299 F. Supp. 843 (E.D. Ark. 1969); 302 F. Supp. 136 (E.D. Ark. 1969); Davis v . Board o f E d u c a t i o n o f No r t h L i t t l e Rock , A r k a n s a s ,__S c h o o l D i s t r i c t , 328 F. Supp. 1 1~97 (E.D. Ark. 1971); 449 F.2d 500 (8th C i r . 1971) (en b a n c ) ; 362 F. Supp. 730 (E.D. Ark. 1 973 ) ; 635 F.2d 730 (8th C i r . 1 9 8 0 ) , c e r t ^ __d je n _i e d , 50 U . S . L . W . 3272 (1981) (Rhenquist , J. d i s s e n t i n g ) ; 520 F. Supp. 108 (E.D. Ark. 1981); 674 F.2d 684 (8th C i r . 1982). 7 Rock, 449 F .2 d 500 { 8 t h C i r . 1971) (en banc ) . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t r e t a i n e d j u r i s d i c t i o n . On A p r i l 30, 1975 p l a i n t i f f s moved f o r f u r t h e r r e l i e f , s eek ing , i n t e r a l i a , f u r the r f a c u l t y and s t a f f d e s eg r ega t i on and a r educ t i on in the burden o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n imposed upon black students. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t r u l e d i n f a v o r o f p l a i n t i f f s on September 13, 1977 a f t e r p e r m i t t i n g Mrs. Joshua 's i n t e r v e n t i o n , but the p r e s i d in g judge d i ed b e f o r e r u l i n g on motions by the b o a r d t o v a c a t e a l l p r i o r d e c r e e s and o rders o f the d i s t r i c t court on j u r i s d i c t i o n a l grounds. The d i s t r i c t court even t u a l l y denied the Board ' s motions on June 29, 1979. On appeal , the Eighth C i r c u i t a f f i r m e d the d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n wi thout d i s s e n t . Davis v. Board o f Educa t i o n o f N o r t h L i t t l e Rock, Arkansas , 635 F,2d 730 (1980) . With regard to f a c u l t y and s t a f f , the C o u r t o f A p p e a l s u p h e l d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g tha t the school d i s t r i c t had not e r a d i c a t e d a l l v e s t i g e s o f d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and t h a t " [m ]o re rema ins t o be accompl ished b e f o r e i t can be sa id tha t the North L i t t l e Rock School D i s t r i c t i s f u l l y i n t e g r a t e d . " 635 F.2d at 733. The court a l s o found tha t " the r ecord i s r e p l e t e wi th ev idence o f r a c i a l d i s p a r i t i e s " in e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s and d i s c i p l i n a r y s u s p e n s i o n s , which " can be d r a m a t i c a l l y improved i f t h i s C o u r t ' s e a r l i e r mandate, r e q u i r i n g a n o n r a c i a l l y i d e n t i f i a b l e f a c u l t y and s t a f f a t e v e r y l e v e l o f the schoo l system is prompt ly implemented. " 635 F.2d at 733. The court remanded the case t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t w i t h o r d e r s t o " r e t a i n j u r i s d i c t i o n u n t i l such t ime as the N o r t h L i t t l e Rock S c h o o l D i s t r i c t i s thoroughly integrated. Id. 9 The boa rd ' s p e t i t i o n f o r c e r t i o r a r i t o t h i s Court , which r a i s e d the same ques t i ons as the board seeks to p resent by i t s p r e s ent p e t i t i o n , was denied. Board o f Educa t i o n o f North L i t t l e Rock, Arkansas, School D i s t r i c t v. D a v i s , 50 U.S.L.W. 3272 (1981) (Rhenquist , J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) . REASONS TO DENY THE WRIT 1. L a s t t e r m , t h i s C o u r t d e n i e d c e r t i o r a r i t o r e v i e w the same q u e s t i o n s . . 3/ presented in the in s tan t p e t i t i o n . - The 3/ The ques t i ons presented in the p e t i t i o n in 80-1831 were: (1) Does C o n s t i tu t i o n ve s t d i s t r i c t court w i th j u r i s d i c t i o n to c o n t i n u e i t s s u p e r v i s i o n o f a s c h o o l d i s t r i c t ' s c o n t i n u e d o p e r a t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g impos i t i on o f mandatory c r o s s - d i s t r i c t bus i ng and m a n i p u l a t i o n o f s c h o o l assignments to ach ieve r a c i a l balance where d i s t r i c t has o p e r a t e d c o u r t - a p p r o v e d r a c i a l l y u n i t a r y s c h o o l system s ince 1972? 10 - record r e v e a l s tha t s ince then the board has presented no new f a c t u a l ev idence in support o f i t s cont en t i ons or at tempted to show m a t e r i a l change o f c i rcumstances : the record on the f a i l u r e to ach ieve un i t a ry s ta tus in 1 972 and Mrs . Joshua 's standing i s e x a c t l y the same as when t h i s case was l a s t be f o r e the Court . Below, the board mere l y reargued ques t i ons p r e v i o u s l y and c o n c l u s i v e l y dec ided aga ins t i t by the two lower cour ts . Nor does the in s tan t p e t i t i o n make any argument in b e h a l f o f r ev i ew not p r e v i o u s l y made in the pr ev i ous p e t i - t ion. 3/ cont inued (2 ) I s d i s t r i c t c o u r t a t l i b e r t y t o t r e a t s u i t f i l e d in 1 968 but n e v e r c e r t i f i e d under Fed. R. C i v . P. 23 as c l a s s a c t i on in o rder t o susta in i t s cont inued su p e r v i s i o n o f ope ra t i on o f s c h o o l d i s t r i c t and t o s u m m a r i l y s u b s t i t u t e new nominal p l a i n t i f f s from t ime to t ime t o perpe tuate i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n in r e s p o n s e t o c l a i m o f mootness f o r l a c k o f any p l a i n t i f f w i th stake in i t s outcome? Thus, t h e r e s i m p l y i s no r e as on f o r the Court t o r e c on s id e r i t s p r i o r d e n i a l o f the w r i t . 2. P e t i t i o n e r was the p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y below on the matters a c t u a l l y l i t i gated and seeks no change in the r e s u l t s ob ta ined below as to those matters . P e t i t i o n e r seeks o n l y a change in the l e g a l theory o f the d e c i s i o n s below in o rder t o a f f e c t the d i s p o s i t i o n o f m a t t e r s o t h e r t h a n t h o s e a c t u a l l y c o n s i d e r e d by t h e courts below. 3. Wi th r e s p e c t t o the m e r i t s o f the ru l i n g o f the two courts below on the achievement o f un i t a ry s t a tu t e and s tand in g , we r e f e r the Cour t t o the b r i e f in o p p o s i t i o n f i l e d in No. 80-1331. However, we note that there was no abuse o f e q u i t a b l e d i s c r e t i o n by the courts below in r u l ing t h a t the board has f a i l e d t o a t t a i n un i t a ry s t a tus . The board has not sought 12 - an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g much l e s s demon s t r a t e d tha t mere i n i t i a l implementat ion o f the d e s e g r e ga t i on p lan in the 1 972-73 schoo l year r e s u l t e d in a f u l l t r a n s i t i o n t o a r a c i a l l y n o n d i s c r i m i n a t o r y s c h o o l system. The ru l e i s that the e f f i c a c y o f a d e s e g r e g a t i o n remedy must be p r o v e d in 4/ p r a c t i c e . As l a t e as 1 980, the Court o f Appea ls , r e f e r r i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y t o f a c u l t y and s t a f f s e g r e g a t i o n and u t i l i z a t i o n o f f a c i l i t i e s , s t a t ed that " [m jo r e remains to be accompl ished b e f o r e i t can be sa id tha t the North L i t t l e Rock School D i s t r i c t is 5/ f u l l y i n t e g r a t e d . " 635 F . 2d a t 733 . 4/ E . g . , Raney v . Board o f E d u c a t i o n , 391 U.S. 443, 449 (1968) ; Green v. School Board o f New Kent C o u n t y , 391 U.S. 430, 439 (1968) ; see a l s o Uni ted S ta t es v. Texas Educat ion Agency , 647 F.2d 504, 508-09 (5th C i r . 1981). 5/ The Court has r e p e a t e d l y ru l ed tha t f a c u l t y and s t a f f assignment and u t i l i z a t i o n o f f a c i l i t i e s p r e s e n t i s s u e s which 13 In i t s most r e c e n t o p i n i o n , the E i g h t h C i r c u i t e x p r e s s l y r e c o g n i z e d t h e need f o r the c o u r t ' s " cont inu ing j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r d e s e g r e g a t i o n " and t h a t " [ t ] h i s case sh ou ld not be d i s m i s s e d and a case o r ‘ c o n t r o v e r s y s u f f i c i e n t t o s a t i s f y A r t i c l e I I I w i l l e x i s t u n t i l such t ime as t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s t h a t a u n i t a r y sys tem o f e d u c a t i o n has been ach ieved and the North L i t t l e Rock School D i s t r i c t i s t h o r o u g h l y i n t e g r a t e d . " 674 6/ F .2d at 689. 5/ cont inued p r o p e r l y f a l l w i t h i n the scope o f a d e s e g r e g a t i o n case. Columbus Board o f Educa t i o n v. P e n i c k , 443 U.S. 449, 460 (1979) ; Keyes v. School D i s t r i c t No. 1 , 4 13 U.S. 189, 200 (1973) ; Swann v, Char l o t t e -M eck- lenburg Board o f Educat ion, 402 U.S. 1, 18 (1971) . 6/ Absent an e v i d e n t i a r y hear ing on the at ta inment o f un i ta ry s ta tus , the e s t a b l i s h e d p r a c t i c e i s that the d i s t r i c t court should maintain j u r i s d i c t i o n o f a school 14 As t o s t a n d i n g , i t has l o n g be e n the r u l e t h a t each i n d i v i d u a l m i n o r i t y s t u d e n t has a r i g h t t o a t t e n d f u l l y nond i sc r im ina tory schoo l s and standing to ch a l l en ge p a r t i c u l a r aspec ts o f a r a c i a l l y se gr ega ted school system. E. g . , Rogers v . Paul , 382 U .S. 198, 200 ( 1 9 6 5 ) ; F l a x v. £ o t t s , 313 F .2 d 284 , 2 8 8 - 8 9 ( 5 t h C i r . 1963). P e t i t i o n e r r e l i e s on Pasadena C i t y Board o f Educat ion v, S p a n g l e r , 427 U.S. 424, 429-30 (1976) . In that case, p l a i n t i f f s had graduated from the school system and o n l y the i n t e r v e n t i o n o f the U n i t e d S ta t e s kept the l i t i g a t i o n from becoming moot. The ins tant case is d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e 6/ cont inued d e s e g r e g a t i o n c a se . E . g . , Lee v . Macon County Board o f E d u c a t i o n , 584 F . 2d 78, 81 (5th C i r . 1978) ; Uni ted S ta t es v. S ta t e o f T e x a s , 509 F . 2 d 192, 193 ( 5 t h C i r . 1975) ; You ngb lood v . Board o f Pu b l i c I n s t r u c t i o n , 448 F . 2d 770 (5th C i r . 1971). 15 from Pasadena in that the d i s t r i c t court a l l owed Mrs. Joshua, a p l a i n t i f f - i n t e r v e n o r wi th a l i v e i n t e r e s t in the c o n t r o v e r s y , to in te r v ene over f i v e years ago. CONCLUSION The p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i should be denied. R e s p e c t f u l l y submitted, JACK GREENBERG JAMES M. NABRIT, I I I BILL LANN LEE* THEODORE M. SHAW Su i t e 2030 10 Columbus C i r c l e New York, New York 10019 (212) 586-8397 JOHN W. WALKER Su i t e 119 F i r s t N a t i o n a l Bank Bu i l d ing L i t t l e Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 374-3758 *Counsel o f Record A t to rney s f o r Respondents MEILEN PRESS INC. — N. Y. C. « ^ p * > 219