Belk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education Reply Brief in Final Form of Appellants Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, et al.
Public Court Documents
May 19, 2000

Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Belk v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education Reply Brief in Final Form of Appellants Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, et al., 2000. 4969798a-c69a-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/73505c65-b0a1-4da4-bf32-2fede0c5b388/belk-v-charlotte-mecklenburg-board-of-education-reply-brief-in-final-form-of-appellants-charlotte-mecklenburg-board-of-education-et-al. Accessed July 05, 2025.
Copied!
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- ■ -