Belk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education Reply Brief in Final Form of Appellants Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, et al.

    IN THE UNITED STATES 
COURT OF APPEALS FOR 

THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Nos. 9 9 -2 3 8 9 , 9 9 -2 3 9 1 , 0 0 -1 0 9 8  and  0 0 -1 4 3 2

TERRY BELK, et ah,
P lain tiffs-A ppellan ts,

and
WILLIAM CAPACCHIONE, MICHAEL P. GRANT, e t  ah,  

P la in tiff-In terven ors-A p p ellees, 
v.

THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION, et ah,
D efen d an ts-A p p ellan ts.

WILLIAM CAPACCHIONE, MICHAEL GRANT, e t  ah,  
P la in tiff-In terven ors-A p p ellees, 

and
TERRY BELK, e t  ah,
P la in tiffs-A ppellan ts,

v.
THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION, e t  ah,

D efen d an ts-A p p ellan ts.

A ppeal From  th e  U nited  S ta te s  D istr ic t Court 
for th e  W estern D istr ic t o f  N orth Carolina

REPLY BRIEF IN FINAL FORM OF APPELLANTS 
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION, E T  AL.

Allen R. Snyder 
Maree Sneed 
Jo h n  W. Borkowski 
HOGAN & HARTSON L.L.P. 
555 T hirteenth  Street, N.W. 
W ashington, DC 20004 
(202) 637-5741

Dated: May 19, 2000

Jam es  G. M iddlebrooks 
Irving M. B renner 
Amy Rickner Langdon 
SMITH HELMS MULLISS 
& MOORE, L.L.P.
201 N. Tryon Street 
Charlotte, NC 28202 
(704) 343-2051

Leslie W inner 
G eneral Counsel 
C harlotte - M ecklenburg 
Board
of Education 
Post Office Box 30035 
Charlotte, NC 28230-0035 
(704) 343-6275

C ounsel for A ppellants 
C harlotte-M ecklenburg 
Board of Education, et al.



IN THE UNITED STATES 
COURT OF APPEALS FOR 

THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Nos. 9 9 -2 3 8 9 , 9 9 -2 3 9 1 , 0 0 -1 0 9 8  and 0 0 -1 4 3 2

TERRY BELK, et ah,
P la in tiffs-A ppellan ts,

and
WILLIAM CAPACCHIONE, MICHAEL P. GRANT, et ah,  

P lain tiff-In terven ors-A p p ellees, 
v.

THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION, et ah,
D efen dants-A ppellants.

WILLIAM CAPACCHIONE, MICHAEL GRANT, et ah,  
P lain tiff-In terven ors-A p p ellees, 

and
TERRY BELK, et ah,
P lain tiffs-A ppellan ts,

v.
THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION, et ah,

D efen dants-A ppellants.

A ppeal From  th e  U nited  S ta te s  D istr ic t Court 
for th e  W estern D istr ic t o f  N orth Carolina

REPLY BRIEF IN FINAL FORM OF APPELLANTS 
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF EDUCATION, E T  AL.

Allen R. Snyder 
Maree Sneed 
Jo h n  W. Borkowski 
HOGAN & HARTSON L.L.P. 
555 Thirteenth  Street, N.W. 
W ashington, DC 20004 
(202) 637-5741

Dated: May 19, 2000

Jam es G. M iddlebrooks 
Irving M. B renner 
Amy Rickner Langdon 
SMITH HELMS MULLISS 
& MOORE, L.L.P.
201 N. Tryon Street 
Charlotte, NC 28202 
(704) 343-2051

Leslie W inner 
G eneral Counsel 
C harlotte-M ecklenburg 
Board
of Education 
Post Office Box 30035 
Charlotte, NC 28230-0035 
(704) 343-6275

Counsel for Appellants 
C harlotte-M ecklenburg 
Board of Education, et al.



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF CO NTEN TS........................................................................... ............................ . i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES................................................... ....................................................ii

ARGUM ENT.................................................................................................................................... 1

I. APPELLEES’ BRIEF CONTAINS NUMEROUS MISREPRESENTATIONS
........................................................................................................................................2

II. CMS IS NOT UNITARY..............................................................................................9

III. WHILE CMS WAS STILL OPERATING PURSUANT TO A
DESEGREGATION DECREE, ITS MAGNET PLAN WAS LAW FUL..... 10

IV. THE INJUNCTION WAS UNNECESSARY BECAUSE CMS DID NOT
PROPOSE TO CONTINUE ITS MAGNET PLAN............................................20

V. THE INJUNCTION IS OVERBROAD.................................................................23

VI. THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN HARSHLY
SANCTIONING THE SCHOOL D ISTRICT...................................................... 27

VII. APPELLEES ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEYS’ F E E S .....................29

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 33

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

-  l  -



TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Arthur v. Nyquist, 473 F.Supp. 830 (W.D.N.Y. 1979)..................................................................... 5

Associated Gen. Contractors o f Cal. v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 616 F.2d 1381
(9th Cir.), cert, denied, 449 U.S. 1061 (1980)............................................................... 12,25

Brock v. R.J. Auto Parts and Service, Inc., 864 F.2d 677 (10th Cir. 1988) ..................................28

Capacchione v. Charlotte-Mecklenhurg Sch., 57 F. Supp. 2d 228 (W.D.N.C. 1999)......... passim

Coalition for Econ. Equity v. NAACP, 122 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 1997)...................................... 12,25

Columbus Bd. ofEduc. v. Penick, 443 U.S. 449 (1979) ..........................................................26, 27

Eisenbergv. Montgomety County Pub. Sch., 197 F.3d 123 (4th Cir. 1999), cert, denied,
120 S,Ct. 1420 (2000) .....................................................................................................11,26

Estes v. Metropolitan Branches o f Dallas NAACP, 444 U.S. 437 (1980) .................................... 27

Hampton Jefferson County Bd. ofEduc., 72 F.Supp. 2d 753 (W.D. Ky. 1999) ............ 11,17,19

Ho v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 147 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 1998) ........................................ 12

Hunter v. Regents ofUniv. o f Cal., 190 F.3d 1061 (9th. Cir. 1999)................................................27

Jackson v. Kroblin RefrigeratedXpress, 49 F.R.D. 134 (N.D. W.Va. 1970)...............................28

Jenkins v. Missouri, 942 F.2d 487 (8th Cir.), cert, denied, 502 U.S. 967 (1991) .........................16

Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 659 F.Supp. 363
(E.D.Ark. 1987) .................................................................................................................. 16

Martin v. Charlotte-MecklenburgBd. ofEduc., 475 F.Supp. 1318 (W.D.N.C. 1979), affd,
626 F.2d 1165 (4th Cir. 1980), cert, denied, 450 U.S. 1041 (1981)....................4, 9,17, 19

Martin v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. ofEduc., 626 F.2d 1165 (4th Cir. 1980) ..........................25

Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Brotherhood ofR.R. Signalmen, 164 F.3d 847 (4th Cir., 1998)....... 20,22

Paradise v. United States, 480 U.S. 149(1986) ............................................................................ 11

Regents ofUniv. o f Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)................................................................26

S-l and S-2 v. State Bd. o f Educ., 21 F.3d 49 (4th Cir.), cert, denied, 5-13 U. S. 876
(1994) .................................................................................................................................. 31

Shaw v. Hunt, 154 F.3d 161 (4th Cir. 1998) .................................................................................. 31

ii



Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. ofEduc., 311 F.Supp 265 (W.D.N.C. 1970) ...... 3,13,14,17

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. ofEduc., 402 U.S. 1 (1971) ....................................... passim

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. ofEduc., 379 F.Supp. 1102 (W.D.N.C. 1974) ........ 14,16,19

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. ofEduc., 501 F.2d 383 (4th Cir. 1974)  ................   14

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. ofEduc., 67 F.R.D. 648 (W.D.N.C. 1975) .........................7

Texas v. Lesage, 120 S.Ct. 467 (1999)............................................................................................30

Tuttle v. Arlington County Sch. Bd., 195 F.3d 698 (4th Cir. 1999), cert, denied, 120 S.Ct.
1552 (2000)............................................................................................................ 7,11,24,26

United States v. Hunter, 459 F. 2d 205 (4th Cir.), cert denied, 409 U.S. 934 (1972) ..................23

United States v. Pittman, 808 F.2d 385 (5th Cir. 1987)..............   4

United States v. State o f Miss., 622 F.Supp. 622 (S.D.Miss. 1985), rev 'cl on other grounds
sub nom. United States v. Pittman, 808 F.2d 385 (5th Cir. 1987)....................................... 5

United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) ....................................................................... 22-23

Vaughns v. Board ofEduc. o f Prince George’s County, 980 F.Supp. 834 (D.Md. 1997) ............ 16

Vaughns v. Board ofEduc. o f Prince George's County, 758 F.2d 983 (4th Cir. 1985)................. 19

Washington v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 458 U.S. 457 (1982) ..............................................25,26,27

Wessman v. Gittens, 160 F.3d 790 (1st Cir. 1998) ......................................................................... 12

Wilson v. Office o f Civilian Health, 65 F.3d 361 (4th Cir. 1995) .................................................... 7

Wilson v. Volkswagen o f Am., Inc., 561 F.2d 494 (4th Cir. 1997).................................................27

Wirtz U.B.A.C. Steel Prods. Inc., 312 F. 2d 14 (4th Cir. 1963)......................................................28

iii



ARGUMENT

The C harlo tte-M eck lenburg  B oard  of E d u ca tio n  (“CMS” or th e  “School 

D istric t”) is n o t y e t u n ita ry  b ecau se  it h a s  n e ith e r fully com plied w ith  the  

desegregation  o rd e rs  n o r rem edied  the  vestiges of segregation  to the  ex ten t 

p rac ticab le . If CMS w ere u n ita ry , full local con tro l sh o u ld  be re tu rn e d  to the 

elected School B oard, a n d  Ju d g e  P o tte r’s in ju n c tio n  im properly  im pinges on 

th a t  au tho rity .

Try a s  they  m ight, A ppellees can n o t tw ist th is  case  in to  a  sto ry  of the  

collusive u se  of d iscrim ina to ry  rac ial q u o ta s  in the  face of in c reas in g  residen tia l 

segregation  c au se d  by dem ographic  change. Therefore, to defend the  

e rro n eo u s decision  below, they  d isregard  a n d  d is to rt the  record  a n d  controlling  

au tho rity .

The h e a r t  of the  a c tu a l d isp u te  a b o u t u n ita ry  s ta tu s  in  th is  case  is 

w h e th er th e  p e rp e tu a tio n  of racial inequ ities, m any  co n tra ry  to explicit co u rt 

o rders, is allowed. As the  S w ann  A ppellan ts m ake clear, viewed u n d e r  the  

p roper legal s ta n d a rd , th e  h isto rica l racial u n fa irn e ss  in a re a s  su c h  a s  s tu d e n t 

a ss ig n m en t, th e  co n stru c tio n  of new  facilities, a n d  the  a llocation  of edu ca tio n a l 

o p p o rtu n itie s  p reven ts  the  School D istric t from  yet being u n ita ry . See  Reply 

Brief of P lain tiffs-A ppellants (filed April 15, 2000) (“S w a n n  Reply B rie f’)

The o th e r m ajor issu e  in  th is  case is the  im proprie ty  of the  lower c o u rt’s 

sw eeping in ju n c tio n , w hich  is n o t only base less , b u t also  u n n e c e ssa ry  an d  

overbroad: CMS did n o t violate the  C onstitu tion ; it did  n o t propose to co n tinue

1



the  m ag n et ad m issio n s  p ro ced u res  re jected  by the d is tric t cou rt; a n d  it shou ld  

n o t be p roh ib ited  from  considering  an y  conceivable, narrow ly  ta ilored , ra c e ­

consc io u s  m e an s  of p u rsu in g  com pelling ed u ca tio n a l in te re s ts  in the  fu tu re .

For th e se  re a so n s  a n d  th ose  se t forth  in the  B rief of A ppellan ts 

C harlo tte-M eck lenburg  B oard of E duca tion , et al. (filed F eb ru a ry  22, 2000) 

(“CMS B rie f’), th e  Brief of P lain tiffs-A ppellants (filed F eb ru a ry  1, 2000) (“S w a n n  

B rie f’), a n d  the  S w a n n  Reply Brief, the  decision below sh o u ld  be reversed.

I. APPELLEES’ BRIEF CONTAINS NUMEROUS MISREPRESENTATIONS

A ppellees repeated ly  m is rep re sen t the  record  below, re levan t co u rt 

decisions, a n d  even CM S’ plainly a rticu la ted  positions. W hile space 

c o n s tra in ts  m ake it im possib le to co rrect all of the  d is to rtio n s  in  A ppellees’ 

136-page brief, som e of the  m ost obvious a n d  o u trag eo u s  a re  n o ted  here.

F irst, A ppellees m ake false fac tu al re p re se n ta tio n s  th a t  a re  n o t 

su p p o rted  by the  record , a n d  often they  provide no record  c ita tio n s  a t  all. On 

the  first page of th e ir  brief, Appellees incorrectly  claim  th a t  “several CMS 

experts  a n d  its  form er su p e rin ten d e n t effectively concluded  the  school system  

w as u n ita ry  m an y  y ears  before th is  litigation e n su e d .” A ppellees’ Brief a t 3.

The only “CMS ex pert” to w hom  A ppellees d irec t the  C ourt is Dr. M ichael 

Stolee. Stolee, however, is su ed  a  rep o rt in  1992 th a t  n o ted  s u b s ta n tia l racial 

inequ ities in  CM S’ s tu d e n t a ss ig n m en t p rac tices  a t th a t  tim e. See  DX 108 a t 3-

- 2 -



9 (Jo in t A ppendix  (“J.A .”) a t 13597-603). 1/ M oreover, Dr. Stolee testified 

w ith o u t co n trad ic tio n  th a t  he never co n d u cted  a  u n ita ry  s ta tu s  an a ly sis  in 

CMS. Tr. 5 /2 5 :8 4 -8 6  (Stolee) (J.A. a t 6367-69). As th e  d is tric t c o u rt found, 

Stolee also  recognized th a t  CMS w as still u n d e r  c o u rt o rd er a n d  recom m ended  

th a t  th e  School D istric t seek  ju d ic ia l approval of an y  ch an g es  to its  s tu d e n t 

a ss ig n m en t p lan . 57 F. S upp. 2d 228, 239 (W.D.N.C. 1999) (citing DX 108 a t 9 

(J.A. a t  13603)). U n d isp u ted  evidence show ed th a t  Stolee a lso  inform ed th en - 

S u p e rin ten d e n t J o h n  M urphy th a t  CMS h a d  racially  identifiab le facu lties, DX 

71 (J.A. a t  13397); Tr. 5 /2 5 :8 6 -8 8  (Stolee) (J.A. a t  6369-71), co n tra ry  to 

explicit c o u rt orders. Sw ann , 311 F .S upp . 265, 268-69  (W.D.N.C. 1970). In 

add ition , A ppellees rely on th e ir w itness Dr. M urphy’s te stim ony  th a t  he 

believed CMS to be u n ita ry , b u t it is u n d isp u te d  th a t  M urphy  never even asked  

Dr. Stolee or anyone else to do a  u n ita ry  s ta tu s  analy sis . Tr. 4 /2 6 :2 2 7  

(M urphy) (J.A. a t  2902); Post-Trial Brief a t  76 n .41 . He never p re sen te d  the  

u n ita ry  s ta tu s  is su e  to the  B oard. Tr. 4 /2 6 :3 1 , 227 (M urphy) (J.A. a t  2706, 

2902). He w as shocked  by racial inequ ities in CMS, id. a t  92 -94  (J.A. a t  2767- 

69), a n d  conceded  th a t  m ore could  be done to co rrec t the  rem ain in g  racial 

d isp aritie s. Tr. 4 /2 6 :2 2 8  (M urphy) (J.A. a t  2903-04). See also  Tr. 5 /3 :1 8 3  

(Schiller) (J.A. a t  4032-33).

O ne of the  p rincipal concerns no ted  in Dr. S to lee’s rep o rt w as the  

inequ itab le  tra n sp o rta tio n  b u rd en  on b lack  s tu d en ts . DX 108 a t  3-6  (J.A. a t

1/ C ita tions to exh ib its, hearin g  tra n sc r ip ts , a n d  p lead ings follow the  sam e 
form at u sed  in  CM S’ open ing  brief. See  CMS Brief a t  5-7 n. 1-3.

-3-



13597-600). A ppellees sim ply m is rep re sen t the  fac ts  in a ttem p tin g  to suggest 

th a t  th is  p roblem  never existed. See  A ppellees’ Brief a t  21. D espite the  d is tric t 

c o u r t’s findings to the  co n tra ry  in 1979, 2 /  an d  S to lee’s ob serv atio n s  in 1992, 

see  DX 108 a t  3-6  (J.A. a t  13597-600), A ppellees b razen ly  claim  th a t  the  

tra n sp o rta tio n  b u rd e n  on b lack  an d  w hite s tu d e n ts  “from  1974 to 1992” w as 

“su b s ta n tia lly  eq u a l.” A ppellees’ Brief a t 21. The only alleged su p p o rt for th is  

p a te n t falsehood is the  vague a sse rtio n  by a  single w itn ess  th a t  “w hite an d  

b lack  s tu d e n ts  did sh a re  th a t  b u rd e n .” Tr. 4 /2 2 :3 6  (Bynum) (J.A. a t 2250). 

However, m any  w itn esses  testified  w ith o u t co n trad ic tio n  th a t  the  b u rd e n  w as 

n o t sh a red  a t  all fairly. See  Proposed F indings a t  29-34 , 40-51 (J.A. a t  5 lb -  

17, 518-22). A ppellees’ tre a tm e n t of co n tem porary  tra n sp o rta tio n  s ta tis tic s  is 

even m ore d is in g en u o u s. They claim  th a t “w hites generally  travel . . .  in h igher 

n u m b e rs  th a n  b lack  s tu d e n ts  for desegregation .” A ppellees’ B rief a t  59. 

R em arkably , th ey  cite in  su p p o rt of th is  claim  the  c o u r t’s findings th a t  58%  of 

s tu d e n ts  tra n sp o rte d  for desegregation  p u rp o ses  in 1998-99 w ere black. 57 F. 

S upp. 2d a t  253. The m ag n itu d e  of A ppellees’ d is to rtio n  of th e  record  here  is 

am plified by the  fact th a t  even the  d is tric t c o u rt’s 58%  figure vastly  

u n d e rs ta te s  the  d isp ro p o rtio n a te  b u rd en  on b lack  s tu d e n ts . T h a t percen tage  

im properly  in c lu d es  v o lun tary  tran sfe rs  u n d e r  the  m ag n et p rogram  (which are

2 /  Martin v. Charlotte-M ecklenburg Board o f  Education, 475  F .S upp . 1318, 
1338-40 (W.D.N.C. 1979), a ff’d, 626  F.2d 1165 (4* Cir. 1980), cert, denied, 450 
U.S. 1041 (1981)

-4-



d isp ropo rtionate ly  white). 3 /  More th a n  80%  of CMS s tu d e n ts  m andatorily  

tra n sp o rte d  in p a r t for desegregation  p u rp o ses  in  1998-99 w ere black. See  

Post-Trial B rief a t  15-16.

W ithout an y  record  su p p o rt, A ppellees also  claim  th a t  CMS h a s  “re[lied] 

increasing ly  on s tr ic t rac ia l q u o ta s ,” p u rsu e d  a  “p e rm an en t, ever-accelerating  

rac ial q u o ta  sy stem ” a n d  “con tinua lly  ex p an d ed ] [the] role race  played in 

s tu d e n t a ss ig n m e n t.” A ppellees’ Brief a t 9. To the  co n tra ry , th e  ex p ansion  of 

the  m ag n et p lan  in  1992 m oved CMS aw ay from  m an d a to ry  a ss ig n m e n ts  for 

desegregation  a n d  tow ard  a  m ore v o lun tary  ap p ro ach . M oreover, a s  d iscu ssed  

below, the  m a n n e r  in  w hich  race w as considered  in  m ak ing  a ss ig n m e n ts  to 

m ag n et schools w as the  sam e in  the  expanded  p rog ram  a s  in  1970s an d  1980s. 

See infra  Section IV. U nfortunately , b ecau se  key co m p o n en ts  of the  p lan  

developed u n d e r  Dr. M urphy w ere never im plem ented , see, e.g., Post-T rial Brief 

a t 17-19 (failure to c o n s tru c t m idpo in t schools), CMS ac tu a lly  o p e ra ted  a 

growing n u m b e r of racially  identifiable schools in the  1990s. Id. a t  12-13. 

B ecause  the  S w a n n  P laintiffs foresaw  su ch  adverse  co n seq u en ces, they  actively 

opposed  the  expanded  m ag n et p lan . See S w a n n  Reply Brief a t  26-28 .

Therefore, it is ironic th a t  A ppellees g round lessly  claim  th a t  th e re  w as 

“co llusion” betw een  CMS a n d  the  S w a n n  Plaintiffs. See  A ppellees’ B rief a t 3.

3 /  See United S ta te s  v. S ta te  o f  M ississippi, 622 F .S upp . 622 , 627  (S.D.M iss. 
1985) (voluntary  tra n s fe rs  “c an n o t be considered  a  b u rd e n ”), rev’d  on other 
grounds su b  nom. United S ta te s  v. Pittman, 808 F .2d 385 (5th Cir. 1987); Arthur  
v. N yquist, 473  F .S upp . 830, 840 (W.D.N.Y. 1979) (b u rd en s a re  inequ itab le  
w hen the  b u s in g  w as genuinely  vo lun tary  for w hites b u t n o t for blacks).

-5-



A ppellees a lso  m ake the  false a sse rtio n  th a t  “th e  only c au se  for any  

schoo l’s rac ia l im balance  w as dem ographic  ch an g e .” A ppellees’ Brief a t  11. To 

the  co n tra ry , th e  dem ograph ic  ch an g es  in  C harlo tte  have m ade its  res id en tia l 

p o p u la tion  more racially integrated, 57 F .S upp . 2d a t  237 , a n d  in d isp u tab ly  

m ade desegregation  easier. Post-T rial Brief a t  26-30; Tr. 6 /  11:5 (Lord) (J.A. a t 

7763); Tr. 4 /1 9 :1 3 7 -3 8 , 226  (Clark) (J.A. a t  1585, 1672-73). M oreover, the  

record  show s th a t  CM S’ ac tio n s  an d  in ac tio n s  w ere m ajo r co n trib u to rs  to the 

growing n u m b e r of racially  identifiable schools in th e  early  1990s. See, e.g., 

Post-Trial B rief a t  28-30; Proposed F indings a t  9 1 -104  (J.A. a t  532-38); 

S w a n n  Reply Brief a t  17-20. The racial im b a lan ces  in m an y  schools were 

cau sed  in p a r t by s tu d e n t a ss ig n m en t ch an g es  su ch  a s  (1) a ss ig n in g  add itional 

p red om inan tly  b lack  sate llites  to schools th a t  w ere a lread y  racially  balanced , 

cau s in g  th em  to becom e im balanced ; (2) e stab lish in g  “feeder” p a tte rn s  for 

m iddle an d  high  schools th a t  grouped  toge ther racially  im b alanced  e lem en tary  

schools, c rea tin g  racially  im balanced  secondary  schools; a n d  (3) depairing  

schools w ith o u t im plem enting  any  a lte rnative  s tra teg y  to p rev en t th e ir 

resegregation . Tr. 6 /9 :1 1 1 -1 3 , 135-39 (Foster) (J.A. a t  7 4 60 -63 , 7484-88); Tr. 

6 /1 1 :4 9 -5 2 , 131-32 (Lord) (J.A. a t  7807-10 , 7889-90). As a  re su lt, as  

A ppellees’ dem o g rap h er adm itted , som e schools becam e p red o m in an tly  “black  

w hen the  ne ighborhoods w ere still b a lan ced .” Tr. 4 /1 9 :2 1 8  (Clark) (J.A. a t 

1665). In add ition , o th e r schools th a t  have alw ays been  located  in relatively 

segregated  neighborhoods (areas w hich did n o t experience sign ifican t change in 

th e ir rac ia l dem ographics) h ad  racially  b a lanced  s tu d e n t en ro llm en ts  in the

- 6 -



1970s a n d  1980s b u t w ere allowed to becom e racially  identifiab le in the  1990s. 

See, e.g., Tr. 6 /9 :1 0 6 , 135-39 (Foster) (J.A. a t  7455 -56 , 7484-88); Tr. 6 /1 1 :8 5 -  

86 (Lord) (J.A. a t  7843-44); Proposed F ind ings 92-93 , 103 (J.A. a t 532, 536- 

38).

Second, A ppellees are  willing n o t only to d is to rt the  record  below b u t also  

to m is re p re se n t contro lling  legal au th o ritie s . For exam ple, A ppellees claim  th a t 

the  “1970 o rd er w as the  only desegregation  decree ever is su e d  in the  S w a n n  

c a se .” A ppellees’ Brief a t 7. B u t the  co u rt is su ed  n u m e ro u s  o th e r o rders  an d  

em phasized  in 1975 th a t  th e re  w ere “m any  o rders  of co n tin u in g  effect.” 67 

F.R.D. 648, 649  (W.D.N.C. 1975). See also infra  Section III.

A ppellees a lso  a tte m p t to confuse the  s ta n d a rd  of review to be applied  in 

analyzing  the  d is tric t c o u rt’s in junc tion , suggesting  th a t  the  “abuse-of- 

d isc re tio n ” s ta n d a rd  som ehow  le ssen s  de novo  review of legal is su e s  a n d  differs 

in p e rm a n en t a n d  tem porary  in junc tion  con tex ts. See  A ppellees’ B rief a t  40- 

41. In fact, th is  C o u rt h a s  clearly  explained th a t  “[w]hat we m ean  w hen  we say 

th a t  a  c o u rt a b u se d  its  d iscretion , is m erely th a t  we th in k  th a t  [it] m ade a  

m istake. In m ak ing  th a t  a sse ssm e n t, we review the  d is tric t c o u r t’s fac tu al 

findings for c lear e rro r a n d  its legal conclusions de novo.” Wilson v. Office o f  

Civilian H ealth, 65 F .3d  361, 363-64  (4th Cir. 1995) (in ternal c ita tio n s  om itted). 

M oreover, w hile A ppellees m istaken ly  claim  th is  C o u rt ab an d o n ed  th is  

s ta n d a rd  in  Tuttle v. Arlington County School Board, 195 F .3d  698 (4th Cir.

1999), cert, denied, 120 S.Ct. 1552 (2000), see  A ppellees’ B rief a t  41, the  C ourt 

in  fact se t aside  th e  in ju n c tio n  issu ed  there .

-7-



Third, A ppellees n o t only tw ist the  fac ts  a n d  th e  law, b u t  also 

m is rep re sen t the  School D is tric t’s position  on key issu es . A ppellees, for 

exam ple, a s s e r t  th a t  CMS “repeated ly  acknow ledged a t  tria l th a t  [its] schools 

are  racially  b a lan ced  to the  fu llest ex ten t p rac ticab le ,” A ppellees’ B rief a t  49-50 , 

b u t the  only c ita tion  offered in su p p o rt of th is  rid icu lous p roposition  is a  single 

d o cu m en t offered by Appellees ind ica ting  th a t  CM S’ 1998-99 s tu d e n t 

a ss ig n m en t p lan  b a lan ced  fo u r  com peting considerations  (diversity, stability , 

u tiliza tion , a n d  proxim ity) “to the  ex ten t p rac ticab le ,” P la in tiff-In tervenors’ 

Index a t  124-25 (filed Ju ly  20, 1999) (“P-I Index”) (citing PIX 17) (J.A. a t  718- 

19). CM S’ su p e rin ten d e n t, B oard chair, s taff a n d  ex p erts  all testified  w ithou t 

equivocation th a t  m ore could  p rac ticab ly  be done to desegregate  its schools. 

See, e.g., CMS B rief a t  13-15; Post-Trial Brief a t  31-33; DX1 (J.A. a t  11028).

A ppellees a lso  m ake in co n sis ten t an d  inco rrec t c la im s bo th  th a t  CMS 

does n o t w an t to be u n ita ry , see  A ppellees’ Brief a t 3, a n d  th a t  the  School 

D istric t does n o t co n te s t u n ita ry  s ta tu s  on appeal. Id. a t  42. In fact, CMS 

developed a  p lan  to achieve u n ita ry  s ta tu s  in  a  reaso n ab le  tim e, see, e.g., DX 1 

(J.A. a t  11028), a n d  plain ly  h a s  recognized th a t  it h a s  n o t ye t e lim inated  the  

vestiges of segregation  to the  ex ten t p racticab le . See  CMS Brief a t  13-17.

Finally, A ppellees claim  incorrectly  th a t  “CMS a p p a ren tly  concedes th a t 

[the d is tric t c o u r t’s] in ju n c tio n  w as proper, a ssu m in g  its  finding of p a s t  equal 

p ro tec tion  v io lations w as p ro p er.” A ppellees’ Brief a t  98. This rem ark ab le  

a sse rtio n  ignores the  School D is tric t’s com pelling a rg u m e n ts  th a t, even if CMS’ 

m agnet school p rac tices  h a d  been  u n co n stitu tio n a l, th e  in ju n c tio n  nevertheless

- 8 -



w ould have been  u n n e c e ssa ry  — becau se  CMS did n o t p ropose  to co n tin u e  its 

m ag n et p lan  — a n d  overbroad  -  b ecau se  it p roh ib ited  an y  fu tu re  narrow ly- 

tailored , race-co n sc io u s  ac tio n s  by the  B oard. See  CMS Brief a t  26-32; Accord 

infra  a t  S ections IV-V.

In sh o rt, like a  fu n h o u se  m irror, the  A ppellees’ B rief c an n o t be relied 

u p o n  for a n  acc u ra te  reflection of the  record  below, the  governing law, or the 

is su e s  a t  s tak e  in th is  case.

II. CMS IS NOT UNITARY

As the  S w a n n  A ppellan ts ably d em o n stra te , A ppellees c an n o t 

successfu lly  defend the  d is tric t c o u rt’s e rro n eo u s ru lin g  th a t  CMS is u n ita ry . 

See  S w ann  Reply Brief. The p rincipal re a so n s  th a t  th e  School D istric t is no t 

u n ita ry  re la te  to the  p e rs is te n t inequ ities  flowing from  the  fa ilure  to com ply 

fully w ith  the  S w a n n  o rders. See  Post-Trial Brief a t  11-73. For exam ple, m any  

of the  sam e is su e s  no ted  by the  d is tric t co u rt in  Martin still have n o t been  dealt 

w ith adequate ly . Id. a t  6-26. The c u rre n t School D istric t lead ersh ip , however, 

is com m itted  to a d d re ss in g  th ese  p roblem s, inc lud ing  the  fa ilure  to c o n s tru c t 

new  facilities w here they  can  readily  serve bo th  races  a n d  th e  re la ted  inequ ities 

in tra n sp o rta tio n  b u rd e n s  an d  d isp aritie s  in facilities quality . Id. a t 31-33 , 50. 

CMS is also  reform ing o th e r p rac tices, su ch  as  track ing , th a t  co n trib u te  to the  

p e rs is te n t ach ievem en t gap betw een its b lack  an d  w hite s tu d e n ts . Id. a t  39, 

69-71 . M oreover, th ese  is su e s  are  in tegrally  in te rre la ted  w ith  s tu d e n t 

a ss ig n m en t, b ecau se  a  re tu rn  to racially  iso lated  schools w ould  only exacerbate  

the  p e rs is te n t rac ia l inequ ities. Id. a t  71-74 . Finally, the  dem ograph ic  changes

-9-



th a t  have m ade C h arlo tte ’s res id en tia l p o p u la tion  larger a n d  more racially 

integrated  have n o th in g  a t  all to do w ith  m ost of th ese  is su e s  a n d  ru n  co u n te r 

to the  tre n d  of in c reasin g  racial im balance  in s tu d e n t en ro llm en ts . Id. a t  26- 

30. Therefore, the  d is tric t co u rt e rred  in conclud ing  th a t  th e  School D istric t is 

u n ita ry . 4 /

III. WHILE CMS WAS STILL OPERATING PURSUANT TO A
DESEGREGATION DECREE, ITS MAGNET PLAN WAS LAWFUL

The d is tr ic t co u rt e rred  in applying s tric t sc ru tin y  to th e  School D is tric t’s 

good faith  effort to com ply w ith the  S w a n n  o rders  th ro u g h  the  opera tion  of 

m ag n et schools a n d  in aw ard ing  d am ages a n d  in junctive relief on th a t  basis . 

A ppellees seek  to defend the  d is tric t c o u r t’s an a ly s is  of CM S’ m ag n e t school 

ad m issio n s  p rac tices  by claim ing on the  one h a n d  th a t  s tr ic t sc ru tin y  applies 

to efforts to im plem ent co u rt-o rdered  desegregation  req u irem en ts , see  

A ppellees’ B rief a t  81 -83 , 88-89 , an d  on the  o th e r h a n d  th a t  CM S’ m agnet 

schools were n o t a  good faith  effort to com ply w ith the  S w a n n  o rders. Id. a t 

84-88 , 89-91 . T heir first a rg u m en t is inco rrec t a s  a  m a tte r  of law, a n d  th e ir

4 /  Ju d g e  P o tte r’s co nclusions w ith  re sp ec t to CM S’ experts  Dr. W illiam 
T rent, Dr. R obert Peterk in , Dr. Dwayne G ardner, Dr. G ordon F oste r an d  
Dr. Rosylyn M ickelson are  clearly e rroneous. A fair read ing  of th e ir  rep o rts  an d  
testim ony  does n o t su p p o rt the  d is tric t c o u rt’s conclusions, b u t d em o n stra te s  
the  len g th s  to w hich  the  co u rt w ent in a ttem p tin g  to escape  th e  w eight of the  
evidence. See DX 10, DX 11, DX 6, DX 7, DX 13, DX 13A, DX 5 a n d  DX 8 (J.A. 
a t 11959, 12089, 11591, 11665, 12179, 12482, 11460, 11862). The co u rt also 
clearly  erred  in  u tte rly  ignoring the  testim ony  a n d  expert rep o rt of Dr. D ennis 
Lord, DX 12 (J.A. a t  12100), w hich  d ism an tles  the  dem ographic  an aly sis  of 
Dr. W illiam C lark , on w hich  A ppellees a n d  the  c o u rt below e rroneously  relied. 
See, e.g., P roposed F indings a t  TJf97-104 (J.A. a t  533-38).

- 10 -



second  a rg u m e n t re s ts  on m is rep re sen ta tio n s  of bo th  the  S w a n n  o rders  an d  

the  record  below.

F irst, A ppellees m istaken ly  claim  th a t  the  S up rem e C o u rt in Paradise v. 

United S ta tes, 480  U.S. 149 (1986), overruled  decad es  of school desegregation  

ju risp ru d e n c e , see  CMS B rief a t  17-20, an d  held  th a t  s tr ic t s c ru tin y  app lies to 

co u rt-o rd ered  rac ial c lassifications. A ppellees’ B rief a t  82, 88. The C ourt did 

n o t so hold, expressly  reserv ing  th a t  issu e , 480  U.S. a t  167, a n d  it h a s  never 

held th a t  s tr ic t sc ru tin y  app lies to desegregation  rem edies. Indeed, a s  Ju s tic e  

S tevens no ted  in  h is  co n cu rrin g  opinion in Paradise, “[t]he cen tra l th em e” of 

the  C o u rt’s opin ion  in S w a n n  w as “th a t  race-co n sc io u s  rem ed ies are  obviously 

requ ired  to rem edy racially  d iscrim ina to ry  ac tio n s  by the  S ta te .” Id. a t  189 

(citing S w ann , 402 U.S. 1 (1971)). Therefore, d is tric t c o u rts  have “broad  an d  

flexible au th o rity  to rem edy the  w rongs re su ltin g  from  [such] v io la tio n ^ ].” Id. 

a t  190. Today, the  governing s ta n d a rd  in school desegregation  c ase s  rem ain s  

clear: W hen a  school board  ac ts  p u rs u a n t  to a  co n tin u in g  desegregation  

decree, it “p o sse sse s  considerab le  d iscretion  to e n ac t s tu d e n t a ss ig n m en t 

policies to m eet its  co n tin u in g  obligations u n d e r  the  D ecree.” H am pton v. 

Jefferson  C ounty Bd. o fE d u c., 72 F .S upp. 2d 753, 777  (W.D. Ky. 1999). See  

also  CMS B rief a t  17-19.

A ppellees also  can n o t rely on th is  C o u rt’s decisions in  Tuttle an d  

Eisenberg  to su p p o rt th e  rem arkab le  proposition  th a t  s tric t sc ru tin y  shou ld  

apply  to co u rt-o rd ered  desegregation  rem edies. See  A ppellees’ B rief a t  82. 

N either of th ose  case s  involved the  im p lem en ta tion  of desegregation  rem edies,

- 11 -



b ecau se  n e ith e r school system  w as u n d e r  co u rt order. O th er c ases  cited  by the 

Appellees, su c h  a s  W essm an  v. Gittens, 160 F .3d 790 (1st Cir. 1998), are 

in ap p o site  for th e  sam e reason .

Even the  N inth  C ircu it’s an o m alo u s decision  in  Ho v. S an  Francisco  

Unified School District, 147 F .3d 854 (9th Cir. 1998), does no t su p p o rt the  

app lica tion  of s tr ic t sc ru tin y  here. In Ho, the  school d is tric t w as opera ting  

p u rs u a n t  to a  co n sen t decree ra th e r  th a n  a  rem ed ial o rd er en te red  after 

findings of liability. M oreover, the  panel in Ho ignored  th e  N inth  C ircu it’s prior 

teach ing  th a t  “[u]nlike rac ial preference p rogram s, [even voluntary] school 

desegregation  p rog ram s a re  n o t inh eren tly  invidious, do n o t w ork wholly to the  

benefit of c e rta in  m em bers of one group  a n d  co rrespond ing ly  to the  h a rm  of 

ce rta in  m em bers of a n o th e r group, an d  do n o t deprive c itizens of r ig h ts .” 

Coalition fo r  Econ. Equity u. NAACP, 122 F ,3d 692 , 708  (9th Cir. 1997) (quoting  

A ssocia ted  Gen. Contractors o f C al v. Sa n  Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 616  F.2d 

1381, 1387 (9th Cir.), cert, denied, 449 U.S. 1061 (1980)). B ecau se  of th is  

fu n d am en ta l difference betw een school desegregation  a n d  o th e r racial 

c lassifications a n d  b ecau se  of the  longstand ing  trad itio n  of local con tro l of 

public  edu ca tio n , the  S uprem e C ourt h a s  never a b an d o n ed  its  p reced en ts  

requ iring  deference to school au th o ritie s  in  im plem enting  co u rt-o rd ered  

desegregation  rem edies. See  CMS Brief a t  17-21.

A pparently  recognizing the  u n p reced en ted  n a tu re  of the  d is tric t c o u rt’s 

app lication  of s tric t sc ru tin y  to the  School B oard ’s efforts to com ply w ith court- 

o rdered  desegregation  req u irem en ts , A ppellees now  m ake the  b a se le ss  claim

- 12 -



th a t  CM S’ m ag n et school p rogram  “w as n o t designed  to e rad ica te  vestiges of 

seg rega tion .” A ppellees’ Brief a t  89. The d is tric t co u rt itself, how ever, found 

th a t  in  im plem enting  its  m ag n et p ro ced u res  “the  school sy stem  w as acting  to 

fu r th e r a  com pelling governm ental in te re st, i.e., rem edying  th e  effects of p a s t 

racial d isc rim in a tio n .” Capacchione, 57 F .S upp  2d a t  289. M oreover, before 

the  decision  below, Appellees them selves ad m itted  th a t  the  m ag n e t p lan  w as 

in ten d ed  “to com ply w ith  the  C o u rt’s O rder.” P-I Index  a t  |  98 (J.A. a t  635) 

(citing M urphy). 5 /  A ppellees’ s tu d e n t a ss ig n m en t expert a lso  testified  on 

d irec t ex am ination  th a t  “race is an  in tegral p a r t . . .  of m ag n e t schools, of 

ru n n in g  lo tteries for m ag n et schools . . . b ecau se  th a t ’s the only w a y  you  can  

m eet the court order.” Tr. 4 /2 9 :2 3  (Armor) (J.A. a t  3434) (em phasis  added).

See also  Tr. 4 /1 9 :6 8 -6 9  (Clark) (J.A. a t 1516-17); CMS B rief a t  20-21. 

Therefore, the  frivolous a llegation th a t  “no o th e r school sy stem  in  h is to ry  h a s  

been  found  to have m an ip u la ted  desegregation  o rd e rs  in a s  b la ta n t a  m a n n e r ,” 

A ppellees’ B rief a t  92, is a s  d is in g en u o u s as  it is incorrect.

In th is  C ourt, Appellees sim ply ignore the  S w a n n  o rd ers  u p o n  w hich 

th e ir  own expert relied a t  trial. For exam ple, w hile Appellees quo te  th e  d is tric t 

c o u r t’s 1969 s ta te m e n t th a t  it did “n o t feel like it h a s  the  pow er” to o rd er every 

school to have a  70-30  black-w hite  ratio , A ppellees’ Brief a t  7 n .7 , they  fail to 

acknow ledge th a t  the  co u rt su b seq u en tly  o rdered  th a t  “efforts sh o u ld  be m ade 

to reach  a  71-29  ratio  . . .  so th a t  th e re  will be no b a s is  for con tend ing  th a t  one

5 /  See also id. a t  |  107 (J.A. a t  637-38) (citing Schiller testim ony); Tr.
5 /3 :2 1  (Schiller) (J.A. a t  3870) (new p lan  “h a d  th e  sam e objectives a s  the  one it

-13-



school is racially  different from  the  o th e rs .” 311 F .S upp . a t  267-68 . In a  la te r 

o rder, the  c o u rt d irec ted  CMS to en su re  th a t  “p u p ils  of all g rades be assigned  

in su ch  a  w ay th a t  as nearly a s  practicable the various schools a t various grade  

levels have about the sa m e  proportion o f  black and  w h ite  s tu d e n ts .” Id. a t  268 

(em phasis added). This o rder w as affirm ed  by th e  S up rem e C ourt, w hich 

approved the  “u se  m ade of m a th em atica l ra tio s” as  “a  s ta r tin g  p o in t” for 

s tu d e n t a ss ig n m en ts . 402 U.S. a t 25. This req u irem en t clearly  app lies to 

m ag n et schools: This C ourt itse lf h a s  recognized th a t  in sim ilar p rog ram s w ith 

lim ited capacity , su ch  a s  p rog ram s for “exceptionally  ta len ted  ch ild ren ,” th is  

directive m ay requ ire  ad m issio n s  p ro ced u res  th a t  “n ecessa rily  exclude) ] 

som e . . . s tu d e n ts .” 501 F .2d 383, 384 (4th Cir. 1974) (affirm ing in ju n c tio n  

ag a in s t s ta te  c o u rt action  by w hite p a re n ts  challeng ing  ad m issio n s  

p rocedures).

In 1974, the  d is tric t co u rt reaffirm ed its earlier s tu d e n t a ss ig n m en t 

orders, 379 F .S upp . 1102, 1105, an d  approved a  new  p lan  th a t  inc luded  

“op tional” or m ag n et schools. Id. a t  1103. This o rd er expressly  req u ired  CMS 

to e n su re  th a t  m ag n et schools have “ab o u t or above 20%  b lack  s tu d e n ts ,” id. a t 

1104, th a t  is, no less th a n  15 percen tage po in ts  below 35%  b lack , the  

d istric tw ide en ro llm en t a t the  tim e. The co u rt also o rdered  CMS to m onito r 

an d  a d ju s t school a ss ig n m en ts  to p reven t adverse  tre n d s  in  th e ir  “rac ial m ak e­

u p .” Id. a t  1104, 1107.

w as going to rep lace, m ain ta in in g  the  co u rt o rd er”).

-14-



The m a n n e r  in w hich CMS ad m itted  s tu d e n ts  to its m ag n et schools w as 

fully c o n sis te n t w ith  th ese  o rders  an d  n o t rigid or inflexible. J u s t  a s  the 

Sw arm  o rders  requ ired , the  School D istric t u sed  the  d istric tw ide w hite-b lack  

ra tio  of 6 0 -40  a s  “a  s ta r tin g  p o in t,” 402 U.S. a t  25, a n d  th e n  im plem ented  

re c ru itm e n t a n d  ad m issio n s  p ro ced u res  to try  to m eet th a t  goal. See  CMS 

Brief a t  20. S ignificant variance  from  th a t  in itia l goal could  a n d  did occur 

becau se , inter alia, d ifferent p ropo rtions of w hite an d  b lack  s tu d e n ts  reenrolled  

each  year, different n u m b e rs  of w hite an d  b lack  s tu d e n ts  h a d  sib lings who 

w ere au to m atica lly  adm itted , a n d  different n u m b e rs  of w hite  a n d  b lack  

s tu d e n ts  applied . Tr. 4 /2 8 :4 6 -4 8  (Wells) (J.A. a t  3193-95). In 1998-99, n o t a  

single m ag n et school ended  u p  w ith  an  en ro llm en t of 6 0 /4 0 : R ather, the  b lack 

percen tage  varied  from  7% to 82%. Id. a t  37 -38  (J.A. a t  3184-85).

This m ag n et ad m issio n s  p rocess w as c o n sis te n t over tim e, a n d  the  co u rt 

below clearly  erred  in  concluding , w ith o u t an y  su p p o rtin g  evidence, th a t  “the 

w ay th a t  CM S’ m ag n et p rogram  u se s  race in its  ad m issio n s  p ro cess  is 

significantly  d ifferent from  an y  a ss ig n m en t policy o rdered  or approved  of in 

S w a n n .” 57 F .S upp . 2d  a t  286. F irst, the  record  m ak es c lear th a t  “op tional” 

schools a n d  “m ag n et” schools are  the  sam e thing. See  CMS Brief a t  21. For 

exam ple, a  CMS le tte r to the  D ep artm en t of E duca tion , from  w hich  Appellees 

repeated ly  offer selective q u o ta tions, see, e.g., A ppellees’ B rief a t  17, 84 n .44 , 

m akes c lear th a t  in 1974 the  co u rt approved “optional schools (including w hat 

we now  refer to as  ‘m ag n et sch o o ls’).” See  PIX 4 a t  C M 209603 (J.A. a t  15504). 

Indeed, even Appellee G ran t ad m itted  th a t  in  1986 h is  son  h a d  a tte n d ed  a

-15-



m ag n et school, a n d  “they  called them  op tional” schools a t  the  tim e. Tr. 

4 /2 3 :5 2 , 54 (J.A. a t  2489, 2491).

The m ag n et schools of the  1970s an d  1980s also  ad m itted  s tu d e n ts  

th ro u g h  race-co n sc io u s  lo tteries of the  type u sed  by CMS. 6 /  The co u rt 

approved  a  p lan  th a t  w ould m ake op tional schools a t  le a s t 20%  black, 379 

F .S upp . a t  1104, a n d  also  w ould designa te  th e  “m axim um  n u m bers o f  s tu d en ts  

th a t  m ay be d raw n  from  each  o th e r school a tte n d an c e  a rea , by race. ” Id. a t 

1108 (em phasis added). In 1975, CMS rep o rted  to th e  c o u rt th a t  it w as 

contro lling  n o t ju s t  ad m issio n s  b u t also  the  ac tu a l en ro llm en ts  a t  op tional 

schools w ith in  a  p lu s -o r-m in u s  8% range, u s in g  a  race-co n sc io u s  lottery. PIX 

24 a t  C M 072967-75. D uring  the  1980s, the  School D is tric t’s policy for op tional 

schools provided th a t  “[a] lo ttery  will be co n d u cted  by grade of all b lack  an d  

w hite s tu d e n ts  sep ara te ly  u s in g  the system w ide average rac ia l ra tio .” DX 204 

a t If 7 (J.A. a t  14502). Form er S u p e rin ten d en t M urphy, testify ing for the  

A ppellees, also  confirm ed th a t  in 1991 the  optional or m ag n et p ro g ram s “were 

opera ting  on the  b a s is  of a  lo ttery  w ith  two lists , b roken  dow n racially” an d

6 /  M oreover, rac ia l gu idelines of the  k ind  u sed  by CMS are  in d isp u tab ly  
com m onplace for m ag n et schools in school sy stem s u n d e r  co u rt order. See  
CMS Brief a t  20-21 . See also J en k in s  v. Missouri, 942 F .2d  487, 493  (8th Cir.) 
(sum m arily  re jecting  a rg u m en ts  ag a in s t racial q u o ta s  in m ag n et school 
adm issions), cert, denied , 502 U.S. 967  (1991); Vaughns u. Board o f  Educ. o f  
Prince George’s  County, 980  F .S upp. 834, 838 (D.Md. 1997) (“G uidelines 
aim ing a t rac ia l ba lan ce  have h a d  to be adop ted  b ecau se , in  th e ir  absence, 
app lica tions could  well be skew ed in favor of one race or a n o th e r  an d  the  
concep t of the  m ag n et w ould be defeated."); Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski 
C ounty Special Sch. Dist. No. 1, 659 F .S upp. 363, 365, 371 (E.D.Ark. 1987) 
("[a] 11 m ag n et schools shall have a  s tu d e n t popu la tion  w hich  is fifty pe rcen t 
(50%) b lack  a n d  fifty p e rcen t (50%) non-black").

-16-



u sed  “a  6 0 /4 0  w hite to b lack  m ix,” a n d  th ese  “sam e g u ide lines” w ere con tin u ed  

in the  1992 m ag n et p lan . Tr. 4 /2 6 :1 4 7 -4 8  (Murphy) (J.A. a t  2822-23). T h u s 

the  record  m ak es c lear th a t: (1) the  co u rt o rdered  CMS to co n sid er race in 

s tu d e n t a ss ig n m e n t for desegregation  p u rp o ses; (2) the  d is tric t c o u rt approved 

m ag n et schools in 1974 w ith rac ial con tro ls  on ad m issio n s; (3) th e  c o u rt w as 

inform ed of the  basic  lo ttery  p ro ced u res  in  1975; a n d  (4) th a t  p ro cess  did no t 

change  significantly  from  1974 u n til 1999. 7 /

In ad ju s tin g  th e  ad m issio n s  ta rg e t over tim e so th a t  “a s  n early  as  

p rac ticab le” its m ag n ets  w ould have “the  sam e p roportion  of b lack  an d  w hite 

s tu d e n ts ,” 311 F .S upp . a t  268, a n d  expand ing  the  u se  of m ag n et schools in  the 

1990s, CMS did n o t exceed the  “m ax im um  leeway” th a t  the  d is tric t co u rt had  

given it u n d e r  th e  S w a n n  o rders. Martin, 475  F .S upp . a t  1341. A nother 

d is tric t c o u rt recen tly  found th a t  a  school d is tric t th a t, like CMS, w as no longer 

u n d e r  active ju d ic ia l superv ision  b u t w as su b jec t to a n  ongoing desegregation  

decree h a d  ac ted  lawfully p u rs u a n t  to th a t  decree w hen  it chan g ed  its 

desegregation  p lan  w ith o u t co u rt approval. H am pton, 72 F .S upp . 2d a t  767, 

777. “B ecause  the  B oard ’s S tu d e n t A ssignm ent P lan  a n d  its rac ia l gu idelines 

. . . served the  e ssen tia l p u rp o se  of com plying w ith the  . . . Decree, the  C ourt 

concludes th a t  the  Decree p ro tec ts  th ese  policies from  a tta c k .” Id. a t  1 1 1 .

7 / Im m ediately  following the  decision below, CMS im p lem ented  race-b lind  
p ro ced u res  for b o th  m ag n et school ad m issio n s  a n d  s tu d e n t tra n sfe rs , and  
th ese  new  p ro ced u res  rem ain  in effect. See  M em orandum  in S u p p o rt of S tay  
M otion a t  3 (Oct. 14 1999) (citing Affidavit of S u p e rin ten d e n t S m ith  a t  2).

-17-



A ppellees’ claim  on appea l th a t  CMS expanded  its  u se  of m ag n et schools 

to re sp o n d  to dem ograph ic  ch an g es  is b o th  inco rrec t an d  irrelevan t. See  

A ppellees’ B rief a t  84. F irst, it is in d isp u tab le  th a t  th e  in c reasin g  res id en tia l 

in teg ra tion  in M ecklenburg  C ounty  found  by the  d is tric t co u rt, 57 F .S upp . 2d 

a t  237, h a s  m ade desegregation  easier. Post-Trial B rief a t  26-30; Tr. 4 /1 9 :1 3 7 -  

38, 226  (Clark) (J.A. a t  1585, 1672-73); Tr. 6 /1 1 :5  (Lord) (J.A. a t  7763).

Second, th e  d is tric t co u rt itse lf found  th a t  the  School D istric t ad o p ted  its  1992 

m agnet p lan  b ecau se  it “allowed CMS to p h ase  o u t pairing , w hich h ad  becom e 

increasing ly  u n s ta b le  an d  u n p o p u la r” an d  th a t  CMS “w as ac ting  to fu r th e r a  

com pelling in te re s t.” 57 F .S upp. 2d a t  239, 227-28 . Third , th e  record  reveals 

several o th e r reaso n s , u n re la ted  to dem ographic  facto rs, w hy th e  School 

D istric t expanded  its  u se  of m agnets. Appellees falsely claim  -- w ith o u t any  

record  c ita tion  -- th a t  Dr. S tolee’s p lan  “clearly  s ta ted  it w as a  p lan  designed  to 

ba lance  schools th a t  CMS knew  were im balanced  d u e  to dem ograph ic  ch an g e” 

an d  th a t  fo rm er-su p e rin ten d en t M urphy testified  th a t  th e  p lan  w as 

im plem ented  “to c o u n te r-a c t racially  im balanced  schools c au se d  by 

dem ographic  ch an g e .” A ppellees’ Brief a t  85. B oth Stolee a n d  M urphy, 

however, recognized several o th e r p rob lem s w ith CM S’ s tu d e n t a ss ig n m en t 

m ethods in 1992. See  DX 108 a t 3, 5 (J.A. a t  13597, 13599); Tr. 4 /2 6 :2 5 -2 7  

(Murphy) (J.A. a t  2700-02). For exam ple, a s  Appellees conceded  below, “CMS 

im plem ented  its  m ag n et school program  in  p a r t to reduce  the  tran sp o rta tio n  

b u rd e n  on its  m inority  s tu d e n ts ,” P-I Index a t  1157 (J.A. a t  660) (citing Tr. 

4 /2 6 :2 2 2 -2 3  (M urphy) (J.A. a t  2897-98)), a s  it h a d  been  o rdered  to do in  1974,

-18-



379 F .S upp . a t 1106, failed to do a s  of 1979, 475  F .S upp . a t  1338-40, an d  still 

h ad  n o t done in 1992. DX 108 a t 3-13 (J.A. a t 13597-607).

Even if CMS h ad  been  respond ing  to dem ograph ic  ch an g es  ra th e r  th a n  

a ttem p tin g  to com ply w ith  the  c o u r t’s o rders  regard ing  the  fa irn ess  of its 

s tu d e n t a ss ig n m e n t system , the  School D istric t still w ould n o t have been  

violating an y  of the  c o u r t’s s tu d e n t a ss ig n m e n t o rders. As th is  C o u rt held in 

Vaughns v. Board o f  Education o f Prince George’s  County, 758  F .2d  983 (4th Cir. 

1985), u n til u n ita ry  s ta tu s  is achieved a  school d is tr ic t’s “affirm ative d u ty  to 

elim inate  all vestiges of segregation ‘root a n d  b ra n c h ”’ c a n n o t be absolved “by 

rea so n  of dem ographic  ch an g es .” Id. a t  988. W hile it rem ain ed  su b jec t to the  

S w a n n  o rders, CMS re ta in ed  n o t m erely the  d iscretion  to a tte m p t to achieve 

desegregated  s tu d e n t en ro llm en ts  b u t the d u ty  to do so.

“As a n o th e r  co u rt h a s  recently  no ted , the  pa in fu l reality  of s ta te  

sp o nso red  segregation  a n d  constitu tiona lly  m an d a ted  desegregation  requ ires  

th a t  th is  C o u rt respectfu lly  consider an d  delicately ba lan ce  ex isting  legal 

com m ands, n e ith e r ignoring th em  no r p e rp e tu a tin g  th em  u n n e ce ssa rily .” 

H am pton, 72 F .S upp . 2d  a t  776. By aw ard ing  d am ages a n d  in junctive  relief 

b ased  on CM S’ good faith  effort to com ply w ith  the  S w a n n  o rd ers  w hile they  

were still in  effect, the  co u rt below im properly  ignored the  School D is tric t’s 

obligations u n d e r  th ose  orders.

-19-



IV. THE INJUNCTION WAS UNNECESSARY BECAUSE CMS DID NOT
PROPOSE TO CONTINUE ITS MAGNET PLAN

Even h a d  th e re  been  a  co n stitu tio n a l violation -- w hich  th e re  w as no t — 

the  in ju n c tio n  w as u n n ecessa ry : CMS did n o t p ropose to co n tin u e  its m agnet 

ad m issio n s  p ro ced u res . As a  re su lt, th e re  w as no “im m in en t th re a t” of illegal 

action . See Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Brotherhood o f  R.R. Signalm en, 164 F.3d 

847, 856  (4th Cir. 1998).

There w as no evidence a t all th a t  CMS w ould co n tin u e  its  m ag n et 

ad m issio n s  p ro ced u res  a fter being declared  u n ita ry . Indeed , th e  only proffered 

evidence on th is  su b jec t suggested  th a t, a s  a  u n ita ry  school system , CMS 

w ould n o t em ploy race-conscious s tu d e n t a ss ig n m en t m easu re s . See  DX 1 

(J.A. a t  11028). While CMS proposed  to co n tin u e  to co n sid er race  in s tu d e n t 

a ss ig n m en t u n til it becam e u n ita ry , its  p roposed  p lan  w ould  have d isco n tin u ed  

the  u se  of race  a s  a  factor in th ree  y ears  if the  School D istric t w as th en  un ita ry . 

Id. a t  25, 27 (J.A. a t  11053, 11055). M oreover, the  record  is c lear th a t  no 

decision h a d  been  m ade by the  School B oard a b o u t w h a t type of s tu d e n t 

a ss ig n m en t p lan  it w ould im plem ent if the  d is tric t c o u rt found  th a t  it a lready  

w as u n ita ry . See  CMS Brief a t  25.

The School D istric t did n o t even propose to co n tin u e  its  m ag n et 

ad m issio n s  p ro ced u res  w ith o u t m odification if the  co u rt found  th a t  it w as no t 

yet u n ita ry . A ppellees sim ply m isrep resen t the  record , therefore , w hen they 

claim  th a t  “[a]t no tim e du rin g  or after tria l did CMS advise the  co u rt of [its] 

p lan s  to te rm in a te  its m ag n et school” ad m issio n s  p ro ced u res . A ppellees’ Brief 

a t  100. B ecause , a s  im plem ented , Dr. M urphy’s m ag n et p lan  h a d  n o t w orked,

- 20 -



CMS proposed  to the  co u rt a n  en tirely  d ifferent p lan  to com ply w ith  the  Sw a n n  

o rders  an d  becom e u n ita ry . See  DX 1 (J.A. a t 11028). The d is tr ic t co u rt did 

n o t even co n sider th a t  p lan , im properly  excluding  it a s  evidence. See  CMS 

Brief a t  14-15. 8 /

CMS also  never so u g h t to defend the  m ag n et ad m issio n s  p ro ced u res  th a t 

it h a d  ad op ted  to com ply w ith the  S w a n n  o rd ers  a s  a  m eth o d  of p rom oting  

diversity  in  a  p o s t-u n ita ry  system . A ppellees’ su g g estio n s  to th e  co n tra ry  are 

u tte rly  base less . See  A ppellees’ Brief a t 99. As th e  d is tric t c o u rt found, CM S’ 

a rg u m e n ts  (and A ppellees’ a s  well) a b o u t d iversity  a re  “irre lev an t” to the 

propriety  of the  m ag n et p lan  designed  to rem edy p a s t  d iscrim ina tion . 57 F. 

S upp. 2d a t 289. N either B oard C hairm an  A rth u r G riffin’s re fu sa l to specu la te  

a b o u t w h a t the  B oard m igh t do in the  fu tu re  no r h is  own p e rso n a l belief in 

diversity, see  A ppellees’ B rief a t 99, provide any  evidence th a t  the  B oard 

con tem pla ted  illegal actions. Indeed, he u n am b ig u o u sly  testified  th a t  the  

B oard h a d  n o t “d iscu ssed  . . . w h a t to do a fter u n ita ry  s ta tu s .” Tr. 6 /2 1 :8 6  

(Griffin) (J.A. a t 9185).

The School D istric t offered evidence a b o u t the  d an g ers  of resegregation  

an d  the  ed u ca tio n a l benefits of d iversity  solely b ecau se  A ppellees openly

8 /  Ju d g e  P o tte r’s s ta tem e n t th a t  CMS crea ted  th is  rem edial p lan  a s  “an  
eleventh  h o u r s tra tegy” is clearly  e rroneous. In D ecem ber 1998, the  School 
D istric t inform ed the  Appellees an d  the  d is tric t co u rt th a t  it h a d  been  
p reparing  a  “com prehensive rem edial p lan ” to p re sen t to the  court. See  
D e fen d an ts’ R esponse to M otion to R einsta te  R eporting R equ irem en t a t  2 (filed 
D ecem ber 1, 1998). Several m o n th s  before trial, in  re fu sing  to g ra n t A ppellees’ 
m otion, Ju d g e  P o tter no ted  th a t  CMS “prom ises th a t  it will p ropose a

- 2 1 -



so u g h t the  overbroad  in ju n c tio n  th a t  Ju d g e  P o tter u ltim ate ly  g ran ted . See  

C om plain t a t f  43 (filed April 8, 1998) (J.A. a t  140) (requesting  “in junctive relief 

b a rrin g  . . . a n y  race-based policies or p ro ced u res  th a t  seek  to a ss ig n  s tu d e n ts  

or otherw ise  to allocate governm ent benefits  . . .  on the  b a sis  of race”) (em phasis 

added). In the  face of th is  overreaching  req u est, CMS offered evidence a b o u t 

the  re a so n s  w hy a  u n ita ry  school system  — w hich  it does n o t believe itse lf yet 

to be — m igh t in the  fu tu re  w an t to consider narrow ly  ta ilored , race-conscious 

policies.

The fact th a t  CMS believes th a t  su ch  h y p o the tica l fu tu re  policies w ould 

im prove ed u ca tio n  a n d  could  be designed  in a  law ful m a n n e r  does no t 

co n stitu te  a n  im m in en t th re a t ju stify ing  a  p e rm a n en t in ju n c tio n . In Norfolk & 

W estern R ailw ay, a  u n io n  ind ica ted  in its  brief th a t  it h a d  no in ten tio n  to 

strike , a n d  th is  C ourt therefore in te rp re ted  a  p revious “th re a t” to s trike  as  legal 

a rg u m en t a b o u t the  c ircu m stan ces  in  w hich  su ch  action  w ould be lawful. 164 

F. 3d a t  856-57 . Here, CM S’ s ta tem e n ts  a b o u t the  possib le  re a so n s  for a  

u n ita ry  school system  to consider race in  s tu d e n t a ss ig n m en t w ere expressly  

identified a s  legal a rg u m e n ts  an d  did no t co n stitu te  a  th re a t to ad o p t any  

p a rtic u la r  race-co n scio u s  p lan  or to take  any  illegal action .

A ppellees’ m isp laced  reliance on United S ta te s  v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 

(1996), see  A ppellees’ Brief a t  98, only u n d e rsco re s  the  im proprie ty  of Ju d g e

com prehensive rem edial p lan  to the  C ourt p rio r to the  tria l of th is  m a tte r .” 
J a n u a ry  8, 1999 O rder a t 2 (J.A. a t 242).

- 2 2 -



P o tte r’s in ju n c tio n . 9 /  In th a t  case, a fte r it h a d  a lready  been  found  th a t 

V irginia M ilitary In s titu te  (“VMI”) violated the  C o n stitu tio n  by excluding  

w om en, V irginia m ade a  “rem edial p roposa l” th a t  co n tin u ed  th is  exclusion . Id. 

a t 547-48 . Here, Ju d g e  P o tter never gave the  elected School B oard  an  

o p p o rtu n ity  to modify its m agnet ad m issio n s  p ro ced u res  or to co n sid er w h a t 

s tu d e n t a ss ig n m e n t m eth o d s it w ould ad o p t if found  u n ita ry . In s tead , the  

co u rt below im properly  p reem pted  local de liberation  on the  topic w ith  its 

p roh ib ition  of an y  co n sid era tio n  of race.

V. THE INJUNCTION IS OVERBROAD

Even if the  School D istric t were a lready  u n ita ry , its  m ag n et p rac tices  h ad  

been  un law fu l, a n d  CMS proposed  to co n tin u e  th em  -- none  of w hich  is tru e  -- 

the  d is tric t c o u r t’s in ju n c tio n  still w ould be overbroad. The in ju n c tio n  

im properly  p ro h ib its  narrow ly-tailored., race-co n sc io u s  m ag n et school lotteries, 

a s  well a s  an y  o th e r race-conscious s tu d e n t a ss ig n m en t m easu re s . As w ritten , 

it also  m ay forbid CMS from considering  race in selecting  school s ites  an d  in 

crafting  p rog ram s to a d d re ss  edu ca tio n a l deficits am ong  m inority  s tu d en ts .

The in ju n c tio n  goes far beyond enjoining the  m ag n et ad m issio n s  

p ro ced u res  th a t  the  co u rt below incorrectly  found to be u n c o n stitu tio n a l. 

Therefore, it v io lates the longstand ing  principle th a t  an  in ju n c tio n  “sho u ld  no t

9 /  Nor does th is  C o u rt’s decision in United S ta tes  u. H unter, 459 F. 2d 205 
(4th Cir.), su p p o rt A ppellees’ a rgum en t. See A ppellees’ Brief a t  98-99 . In 
Hunter, th is  C ourt ac tua lly  affirm ed the  denial of in junctive relief b ecau se  there  
w as no “cognizable d an g er of re c u rre n t vio lation.” 459 F .2d a t  219. Appellees 
quote d ic ta  a b o u t the  inapposite  s itu a tio n  in  w hich  th e re  h a s  been  “a  p a tte rn  
or p rac tice  of p a s t v io lations.” Id. a t  220.

-23-



go beyond th e  ex ten t of the  e s tab lish ed  violation.” Tuttle, 195 F. 3d a t 708. By 

its te rm s, Ju d g e  P o tte r’s in junc tion  forbids n o t only CM S’ form er m agnet 

ad m issio n s  p ro ced u res  b u t also  race-consciously  d raw n  s tu d e n t a tten d an ce  

a reas , inc lud ing  th ose  explicitly approved in S w a n n  a n d  never even d iscu ssed  

in the  decision  below. T hus, if draw ing a n  a tte n d an c e  b o u n d a ry  one way 

w ould p ro d u ce  a  racially  iso lated  school, b u t a  sligh t m odification would 

provide a  racially  a n d  e thn ically  diverse school, th is  in ju n c tio n  m ay preclude 

CMS from  choosing  th e  m odified boundary .

The in ju n c tio n , however, does n o t stop  th e re  -- a t  the  d is ru p tio n  of 

a tte n d an c e  a re a s  for literally  th o u sa n d s  of ch ild ren  th ro u g h o u t th e  School 

D istric t -- b u t ex ten d s even fu rth e r to the  “a llo c a tio n  of] ed u ca tio n a l 

o p p o rtu n ities  a n d  benefits .” 57 F. S upp. 2d. a t  294. As CMS a rg u ed  below, 

th is  in ju n c tio n  could  be in te rp re ted  to p roh ib it it “from  ad d re ss in g  the  

u n d isp u te d  physica l a n d  ed u ca tiona l deficiencies in m an y  schools — sim ply 

b ecau se  th e ir  s tu d e n t popu la tion  is d isp roportionate ly  b lack .” Post-Trial Brief 

a t 4, 81. This concern  is n o t idle; A ppellees sough t, even p rio r to the  is su an ce  

of the  in ju n c tio n , to p roh ib it su ch  plainly lawful activ ities a s  a  “facilities 

renovation  p rogram  th a t  prioritizes facilities” in the  in n e r city a n d  incentive pay 

to “teach e rs  w ho agree to teach  in in n e r city schoo ls.” See  P la in tiff-In tervenors’ 

M otion a t 2 a n d  Brief in  S u p p o rt a t  3 (filed Ju ly  2, 1999).

A ppellees’ defense of Ju d g e  P o tter’s in junc tion  sim ply ignores the  

S uprem e C o u rt’s s ta tem e n ts  in th is  case  th a t  “school au th o ritie s  have wide 

d iscretion  in  fo rm ulating  school policy, an d  th a t  a s  a  m a tte r  of ed u ca tiona l

-24-



policy school a u th o ritie s  m ay well conclude th a t  som e k ind  of rac ia l ba lan ce  in 

the  schools is d e sirab le .” 402 U.S. a t 45. J u s t  a s  im portan tly , A ppellees never 

acknow ledge th a t  to u p h o ld  the  in ju n c tio n  below th is  C o u rt m u s t overrule its 

own decision  in Martin. 626  F .2d 1165 (4th Cir. 1980). In Martin, th is  C ourt 

held  th a t  the  “School B oard is vested  w ith  b road  d iscre tio n ary  pow ers over 

ed u ca tio n a l policy a n d  is well w ithin its p o w ers  w hen  it decides th a t  a s  a  

m a tte r  of policy schools sh o u ld  n o t have a  m ajority  of m inority  s tu d e n ts .” Id. 

a t  1167 (em phasis added). Ignoring th is  b ind ing  p reced en t, Ju d g e  Potter 

is su ed  a n  in ju n c tio n  forever p roh ib iting  CMS from  m ak ing  th is  type of 

ed u ca tio n a l policy decision.

The Martin decision  h a s  no t been  overruled . The S uprem e C ourt h a s  n o t 

rev isited  the  is su e  of school b o a rd s ’ p lenary  a u th o rity  over ed u ca tio n a l policy, 

inc lud ing  s tu d e n t ass ig n m en t, since its s ta tem e n ts  in S w a n n  a n d  in 

W ashington v. Sea ttle  School District No. 1, 458  U.S. 457  (1982). The High 

C o u rt’s decisions w ith  resp ec t to affirm ative action  in h iring  a n d  governm ent 

co n trac tin g  a re  inapposite . Public ed u ca tio n  is n o t a  scarce  com m odity: CMS 

will teach  all ch ild ren . The School D istric t a ssign ing  s tu d e n ts  am ong  various 

schools is n o t like a  governm ent body choosing  am ong b ids for a  single 

co n tra c t or selecting  am ong app lications for a  p a rtic u la r  job . As the  N inth 

C ircuit h a s  explained , “‘s tack ed  d eck ’ p rog ram s [such a s  race-b ased  

‘affirm ative a c tio n ’] tre n c h  on F o u rteen th  A m endm ent v a lu es  in w ays th a t  

‘reshu ffle ’ p rog ram s [such a s  school desegregation] do n o t.’” Coalition fo r  Econ. 

Equity, 122 F. 3d a t  708 (quoting A ssocia ted  Gen. Contractors o f  C a l, 616  F.2d

-25-



a t 1387). In  Seattle  School District, the  S uprem e C o u rt a lso  recognized th a t 

desegregation  does n o t opera te  to benefit som e (and a s  a  re su lt to h a rm  

others), b u t ra th e r  all ch ild ren  “benefit from  exposure  to ‘e th n ic  a n d  racial 

d iversity  in  the  c la s s ro o m /” 458 U.S. a t  472 (quoting C olum bus Bd. o f  Educ. v. 

Penick, 443  U.S. 449 , 486  (1979)).

The record  in  th is  case  leaves no d o u b t th a t  CMS h a s  com pelling 

ed u ca tio n a l in te re s ts  th a t  it shou ld  be allowed to co n sid er a d d re ss in g  th ro u g h  

narrow ly-tailored , race-conscious m ean s  in the  fu tu re . R esegregation  would 

p re sen t d a u n tin g  challenges for CMS schools. The c u rre n t inequ ities  in 

facilities a n d  ed u ca tio n a l o p p o rtu n ities  w ould be exacerbated . See  Post-Trial 

Brief a t  71-74 . Appellees now claim  th a t som e “race n e u tra l p la n ” m ight 

p reven t th is  resegregation , see  A ppellees’ Brief a t  112, b u t th e re  is no evidence 

in the  record  below th a t  su ch  a  p lan  could  have th is  resu lt.

Appellees also  ignore the  fact th a t  the  m ajority  of th e  S u p rem e C ourt h a s  

recognized th a t  “the  a tta in m e n t of a  diverse s tu d e n t body . . . clearly  is a  

constitu tio n a lly  perm issib le  goal for a n  in s titu tio n  of h igher e d u ca tio n .”

R egen ts o fU niv. o f  Cal. v. B akke, 438 U.S. 265, 311-312  (1978) (opinion of 

Powell, J.). As th is  C ourt recognized in  bo th  Tuttle, 195 F .3d  a t  704, an d  

Eisenberg, 197 F .3d a t  130, lower co u rts , therefore, sho u ld  a ssu m e  th a t  

edu ca tio n a l d iversity  m ay be a  com pelling s ta te  in te rest.

The ed u ca tio n a l benefits of d iversity  are  even m ore com pelling a t  the  

e lem en tary  an d  secondary  level th a n  in  the  h igher ed u ca tio n  context. F irst, as 

the  S uprem e C o u rt h a s  recognized, public  ed u ca tio n  provides the  co rnerstone

-26-



of o u r p lu ra lis tic  dem ocracy: “[A]n e thn ically  diverse school . . . preparfes] 

m inority  ch ild ren  ‘for c itizensh ip  in o u r p lu ra lis tic  society ’ . . . while, we m ay 

hope, teach in g  m em bers of the  rac ial m ajority  ‘to live in h a rm o n y  a n d  m u tu a l 

re sp ec t’ w ith  ch ild ren  of m inority  h e ritag e .” Seattle  School Dist., 458  U.S. a t 

473  (quoting E ste s  v. M etropolitan B ranches o f  D allas NAACP, 444  U.S. 437,

451 (1980); Penick, 443  U.S. a t 485  n.5). Second, u n like  h igher educa tion , 

public  e lem en tary  a n d  secondary  educa tion , a s  n o ted  above, is freely available 

to all ch ild ren . Therefore, race-conscious m e asu re s  to p rom ote  d iversity  a t the 

e lem en tary  a n d  secondary  level need  n o t exclude anyone from  ed u ca tio n a l 

opportun ity .

The d is tric t co u rt e rred  in issu in g  an  overly b road  in ju n c tio n  p rem ised  

on the  legally in co rrec t a ssu m p tio n  th a t  p reven ting  th e  h a rm s  of resegregation , 

prom oting  the  benefits  of diversity, an d  o th e r im p o rtan t ed u ca tio n a l in te re s ts  

never can  be com pelling. 10 /

VI. THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN HARSHLY
SANCTIONING THE SCHOOL DISTRICT

A ppellees m istaken ly  claim  th a t  th is  C o u rt’s decision  in Wilson v. 

V olksw agen o f  America, Inc., 561 F .2d 494 , 505-506  (4th Cir. 1997), does no t 

provide the  re levan t te s t  for the  im position  of discovery san c tio n s  u n d e r  Rule 

37 of the  Federal R ules of Civil P rocedure. See  A ppellees’ B rief a t  132-33. 

Applying Wilson, however, it is c lear th a t: (1) the  B oard  w as reaso n ab le  in its

10 / See also H unter v. R egen ts  ofU niv. o f  C al, 190 F .3d  1061, 1064 n .6 ,
1067 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding th a t  s ta te  h a s  com pelling in te re s t in  u s in g  a 
diverse s tu d e n t p o p u la tion  to s tu d y  effective ed u ca tio n a l techn iques).

-27-



re liance on the  P retria l O rder an d  on th is  C o u rt’s hold ing  th a t  Federal Rule 26 

does n o t requ ire  the  d isc lo su re  of tria l w itn esses  p rio r to the  d a te  d esigna ted  in 

the  governing p re tria l order, see  Wirtz v. B.A.C. S teel Products, Inc., 312 F.2d 

14, 16 (4th Cir. 1963); 11 / (2) the  B oard did n o t ac t in bad  faith; a n d  (3) far 

less d ra s tic  san c tio n s  w ould have been  effective. See  CMS Brief a t 33-36.

A ppellees u se  aggressive, b u t u ltim ate ly  em pty  rhe to ric  in 

ch arac te riz in g  CM S’ w itn ess  d isc lo su re  a s  a n  “a m b u sh ” a n d  in  “sandbagg ing” 

an d  in suggesting  th a t  “som eth ing  . . . m isch ievous w as afoot.” A ppellees’ Brief 

a t  129, 130. A ppellees do no t co n tes t the  in d isp u tab le  fact th a t  CMS 

repeated ly  inform ed th em  m o n th s  before tria l th a t  it believed the  Pretrial 

O rd er’s d ead lines for d isc lo su re  of w itn esses  controlled . See  CMS Brief a t 34- 

35 n. 13. M oreover, Dr. Eric Sm ith , CM S’ S u p e rin ten d en t, w as identified  prior 

to the  dead line  for d isc lo su re  of fact w itnesses, see  A ppellees’ B rief a t  128, 130, 

b ecau se  given h is  v a s t ed u ca tiona l experience it w as possib le  th a t  he w ould be 

called a s  a n  expert.

The claim  th a t  A ppellees w ere p re jud iced  by CM S’ c o n d u c t also  is 

plain ly  false. See  A ppellees’ Brief a t  134. Ironically, h a d  CMS know n or 

d isclosed  all of its  possib le  fact w itnesses du rin g  the  discovery period,

Appellees could  n o t have deposed  them  b ecause  A ppellees  h a d  convinced the 

d is tric t co u rt th a t  th is  w as no t a  com plex case  an d  a lready  h a d  exceeded the

11/ Ja ckso n  v. Kroblin Refrigerated X press, 49 F.R.D. 134, 135 (N.D.W.Va. 
1970)(rule is “well se ttled ”); Brock v. R.J. Auto Parts an d  Service, Inc., 864 F.2d 
677, 679 (10th  Cir. 1988)(citing sim ilar Fifth an d  E igh th  C ircu it decisions).

-28-



lim it on n o n -ex p ert depositions. CMS Brief a t  8-9. M oreover, A ppellees’ 

decision to w ait for over five m o n th s  u n til the  eve of tria l before ra is in g  the 

w itn ess  d isc lo su re  issu e  w ith  the  d is tric t co u rt b a rs  equ itab le  relief u n d e r  Rule 

37. Id. a t  35-36 .

In th is  context, Ju d g e  P o tter ab u se d  h is  d iscre tion  in h a rsh ly  

san c tio n in g  the  School D istric t by g ran ting  A ppellees u n ila te ra l m id-tria l 

discovery, o rdering  CMS to pay all costs , an d  p roh ib iting  ce r ta in  CMS 

w itn esses  from  testifying.

VII. APPELLEES ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEYS’ FEES

None of the  Appellees are en titled  to a tto rn e y s ’ fees b ecau se  they  

sho u ld  no t have prevailed in the  d is tric t court. B ut, even if th is  C o u rt were to 

affirm  on the  m erits , Ju d g e  Po tter erred  in aw ard ing  fees to C apacchione. 

C ap acch io n e’s c laim s for in junctive, decla ra to ry  a n d  co m p en sa to ry  relief were 

d ism issed  w ith  p re jud ice  (both a s  a  p lain tiff a n d  a s  an  in tervenor), a n d  h is 

d a u g h te r  w ould n o t have been  adm itted  to the  school of h e r  choice even if race 

h ad  n o t been  considered , p rec lud ing  liability on h is  rem ain ing  claim  for 

nom inal dam ages. See  CMS Brief a t  38.

C ap acch io n e’s efforts to salvage h is  a tto rn e y s ’ fees reflect the  sam e types 

of d is to rtio n  a n d  m isrep resen ta tio n  of the  record  th a t  ch arac te rize  A ppellees’ 

o th e r a rg u m en ts . For exam ple, C apacch ione claim s he qualifies a s  a  

“prevailing p a rty ” u n d e r  Section 1988 becau se  he allegedly h a d  "clear s tan d in g  

to a tta in  prospective in junctive relief w ith re sp ec t to the  [m agnet school 

p rogram 's  u se  of race" a n d  allegedly recovered “on  th e  m erits  of h is  claim  for

-29-



prospective in junctive relief.” A ppellees’ B rief a t  114-115. To the  con tra ry , the 

tria l co u rt specifically re jected  C apacch ione 's  c laim s of s tan d in g  to seek 

in junctive relief a n d  d ism issed  all of h is  c laim s for prospective in junctive  relief 

w ith p re jud ice  in  th e  c o u r t’s D ecem ber 22, 1998 O rder. M em orandum  of 

D ecision a n d  O rder d a ted  D ecem ber 22, 1998 a t  4-5 (J.A. a t  224-25).

C apacch ione  can n o t prevail on h is  sole surviving dam ag es claim  u n d e r 

Texas v. Lesage, 120 S. Ct. 467  (1999). See  CMS B rief a t  37-38 . Lesage  

te ach es  th a t  a  school can n o t be liable for dam ages if it w ould  have m ade the  

sam e decision  a b se n t the  alleged d iscrim ination . 120 S. Ct. a t  468. Only a  

p la in tiff seeking  “forw ard looking re lie f’ need  n o t affirm atively e s tab lish  th a t  he 

w ould have received the  benefit in question  if race  w ere n o t considered . 

B ecause  C ap acch io n e’s c laim s for “forw ard looking re lie f’ w ere d ism issed  long 

before trial, the  B o ard ’s d em o n stra tio n  th a t  it w ould have m ade the  sam e 

decision if race h ad  n o t been  considered  “p rec lu d es  an y  finding of liability .” Id. 

a t 469. 12 /

C on tra ry  to C ap acch io n e’s u n su p p o rte d  claim  th a t  s tu d e n ts  received 

“race based  lo ttery  n u m b e rs ,” A ppellees’ Brief a t 124, each  s tu d e n t received a 

ran d o m  n u m b e r reg ard less  of race. Tr. 6 /  14:68-71 (Purser) (J.A. a t  8046-49); 

Tr. 4 /2 8 :4 5  (Wells) (J.A. a t 3192). B ecause h e r ran d o m  n u m b e r w as h igher 

th a n  the  total n u m b e r of available sea ts , C ap acch io n e’s d a u g h te r  w ould no t

12/  C apacch ione, like the  d is tric t court, e rrs  in suggesting  th a t  m erely 
re ta in ing  s tan d in g  to a ss e r t a  claim  for dam ages can  su b s titu te  for the  ac tu a l 
finding of liability n ecessa ry  to be prevailing party . Compare Lesage, 120 S. Ct. 
a t  468-69 , w ith  57 F .S upp . a t  288 n .50.

-30-



have been  ad m itted  even h a d  race no t been  considered . Tr. 6 /1 4 :6 8 -7 1  

(Purser) (J.A. a t  8046-49). Therefore, CMS c an n o t be liable even for nom inal 

dam ages, a n d  C apacch ione  is n o t a  “prevailing  p a rty .”

In the  a lte rnative , C apacch ione a rg u es  incorrectly  th a t  he is en titled  to 

fees b ased  on the  G ra n t In te rv en o rs’ su ccess  in Sw ann . C apacch ione  

m istaken ly  su g g ests  th a t  S h a w  v. H unt, 154 F .3d  161 (4th Cir. 1998) su p p o rts  

h is  a rg u m en t, bu t, un like  the  in terveno rs in  Shaw , C apacch ione  w as n o t an  

in te rveno r on the  c laim s on w hich G ran t prevailed. C appach ione  w as 

p erm itted  to "intervene" in  S w a n n ; however, C ap acch ione 's  d ec la ra to ry  an d  

in junctive c laim s were specifically d ism issed  in both  c ases  long before trial 

s ta rted . The tria l co u rt concluded, “C ap acch io n e’s c laim s for in junctive relief -  

a s  a  p la in tiff in  h is  own case and as an intervenor in S w a n n  -  m u s t be 

d ism issed .” D ecem ber 22, 1998 O rder a t  4 (J.A. a t  224) (em phasis  added). 

T hus, a t  tria l, C apacch ione  w as no longer an  in te rveno r on the  c laim s in 

S w a n n  for w hich  he is seeking  fees; he w as only p u rsu in g  h is  c laim s for 

dam ages.

Even if C ap acch io n e’s efforts co n trib u ted  to the  o th e r A ppellees’ success, 

th is  C o u rt h a s  firm ly re jected  su ch  a  “ca ta ly s t” theory  for the  recovery of fees. 

S -l and  S-2 v. S ta te  Bd. o fE d u c., 21 F.3d 49, 51 (4th Cir.), cert, denied, 513 

U.S. 876  (1994).

Finally, S h a w  is d is tin g u ish ab le  b ecau se  of its  "special" a n d  "ra ther 

exceptional" c ircu m stan ces , w hich  th is  C ourt repeated ly  em phasized  in its 

decision. Shaw , 131 F .3d a t  167-168. In Shaw , in te rveno rs lost s tan d in g  only

-31-



after tria l a n d  appeal. In s ta rk  co n tra s t, C apacch ione m oved to C alifornia in 

A ugust 1998 a n d  h is c laim s for d ecla ra to ry  a n d  in junctive relief w ere d ism issed  

in D ecem ber 1988, four m o n th s  before trial. N um erous in te rv en o rs  w ith 

sim ilar c laim s rem ained . Still, C apacch ione  an d  h is  co u n se l vo lun tarily  

p u rsu e d  h is  d am ages claim , a ssu m in g  the  risk  of n o t recovering d am ages or 

a tto rn e y s ’ fees. U nder th ese  c ircu m stan ces  th e re  is no inequ ity  in holding 

C apacch ione  a n d  h is  cou n se l acco u n tab le  to the  c lear req u irem en ts  of Section 

1988 a n d  denying  C apacch ione  a tto rn ey s  fees b ecau se  he is n o t a  "prevailing 

party."

-32-



CONCLUSION

The ju d g m e n t of the  d is tric t co u rt sho u ld  be reversed  a n d  its  in junc tion  

sh o u ld  be vacated .

R espectfully  su b m itted ,

/  \ \ i K
------------ _______________________________

Allen R. Shyder 
M aree Sneed 
J o h n  W. Borkow ski 
HOGAN & HARTSON L.L.P.
555 T h irteen th  S tree t, N.W. 
W ashing ton , DC 20004  
(202) 637-5741

Ja m e s  G. M iddlebrooks
Irving M. B ren n er
Amy R ickner Langdon
SMITH HELMS MULLISS & MOORE,
L.L.P.
201 N. Tryon S tree t 
C harlo tte , NC 28202  
(704) 343-2051

Leslie W inner 
G eneral C ounsel 
C harlo tte-M eck lenburg  B oard  of 
E ducation
Post Office Box 30035  
C harlo tte , NC 28230 -0 0 3 5  
(704) 343-6275

C ounsel for A ppellan ts 
C harlo tte-M ecklenburg  B oard of 
E ducation , et al.

-33-



CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

P u rsu a n t to Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(c), cou n se l hereby  certifies th a t  

the  foregoing brief co n ta in s  7 ,493  w ords. C ounsel h a s  relied on the  word- 

c o u n t func tion  of th e  w ord-p rocessing  system  u sed  to p rep a re  th is  brief.

Irving Mi, B ren n er
SMITH HELMS MULLISS & MOORE, L.L.P. 
201 N. T iyon S tree t 
C harlo tte , NC 28202 
(704) 343-2075

-34-



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I h e re b y  ce rtify  t h a t  tw o c o p ie s  o f th e  fo reg o in g  REPLY BRIEF IN 
FINAL FORM OF APPELLANTS CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG BOARD OF 
EDUCATION, E T  AL. w e re  se rv e d  u p o n  th e  p a r t ie s  to  th is  a c t io n  a s  
follow s:

VIA HAND DELIVERY

John O. Pollard 
Kevin V. Parsons
McGuire Woods Battle & Boothe LLP 
3700 Bank of America Plaza 
101 South Tryon Street 
Charlotte, North Carolina 28280

Thomas J. Ashcraft
212 South Tryon Street, Suite 465
Charlotte, North Carolina 28281

Jam es E. Ferguson, II 
S. Luke Largess
Ferguson, Stein, Wallas, Adkins, 

Gresham & Sumter, P.A.
741 Kenilworth Avenue, Suite 300
Post Office Box 36486
Charlotte, North Carolina 28236-6486

VIA REGULAR MAIL

William S. Helfand 
Magenheim, Bateman, Robinson, 
Wrotenberry & Helfand P.L.L.C.
3600 One Houston Center 
1221 McKinney 
Houston, Texas 77010

Gloria J . Browne
Elaine Jones
Norman J. Chachkin
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational
Fund, Inc.
99 Hudson Street
New York, New York 10013

A. Lee Parks
Kirwan, Parks, Chesin & Miller, P.C. 
75 Fourteenth Street 
2600 The Grand 
Atlanta, Georgia 30309

This the i'1 day of May, 2000.

Irving M. Brenner

-35-



■

-