Bruce v. Stilwell

• Decision Date: 10 July 1953
• Docket Number: No. 14240.,14240.
• Citation: 206 F.2d 554
• Parties: BRUCE et al. v. STILWELL et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

206 F.2d 554 (1953)

BRUCE et al. v. STILWELL et al.

No. 14240.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

July 10, 1953.

U. Simpson Tate and W. J. Durham, Dallas, Tex., for appellants.

John D. Raffaelli, J. I. Wheeler, William V. Brown, Robert S. Vance, and Otto Atchley, Texarkana, Tex., for appellees.

Before HOLMES, BORAH, and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.

BORAH, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas dismissing plaintiff's complaint for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that plaintiffs had instituted this action before exhausting the administrative remedies provided by Texas law.

This suit for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief was brought by five Negro students, citizens of Texas, seeking for themselves and for all others similarly situated and qualified the right of being admitted to Texarkana Junior College, a state institution which under Texas law is open to white students only. The plaintiffs, represented herein by their parents and next friends, are all minors residing in Bowie County, Texas, within the geographic limits of the defendant Texarkana Junior College District. This defendant, a body corporate organized under the general education laws of Texas, operates, controls and supervises Texarkana Junior College by and through the chairman and the members of the Board of Trustees of the District and the president of the college, all of whom are named as additional defendants and are sued in their official capacities as agents and administrative officers of the State of Texas.

Plaintiffs' complaint alleged, in substance: that defendants as officers and members of the Board of Trustees of the Texarkana Junior College District were operating the Texarkana Junior College out of public funds for the exclusive use and enjoyment of members of the Caucasian or non-Negro races; that the defendants are in complete control of the District with full authority to pass upon applications of students for admission to the college; that plaintiffs had applied to the president of the college and the Board of Trustees for admission and that defendants failed and refused to admit them because of their race and color and in violation of the laws of the State of Texas, the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and Title 8 U.S.C.A. §§ 41 and 43; that they were eligible to attend the college; were ready and willing to pay all lawful and necessary tuitions and fees and to take all reasonable and lawful pledges and submit to all reasonable and lawful rules and regulations of the college; and that no other junior college facilities have been provided for plaintiffs by defendants within the junior college district. The relief prayed was that the court declare the rights and legal relations of the parties and permanently enjoin the defendants and each of them from further discriminating against plaintiffs by refusing them the use and enjoyment of the available junior college facilities within the District because of their race and color.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that plaintiffs had failed to plead that they had applied to the administrative agency, and that they had exhausted the administrative remedies set up by state law. On the day when a hearing on this motion was had the court propounded two specific questions¹ to counsel for the plaintiffs and on the basis of his response concluded that the answers to the court's inquiry constituted an admission that plaintiffs had not exhausted the administrative remedies provided by the laws of the State of Texas before resorting to court action and the suit was accordingly dismissed. From this order of dismissal the plaintiffs appeal.

The question here — whether administrative remedies were open and available to plaintiffs — is one of state law² as declared by statute, the state's highest court, or by an intermediate appellate court in the absence of persuasive evidence that the highest Court would rule otherwise. First Nat'l Bank of Greeley v. Board of Com'rs of Weld County, 264 U.S. 450, 44 S.Ct. 385, 68 L.Ed. 784; cf. Federal Deposit Ins. Corporation v. George-Howard, 8 Cir., 153 F.2d 591. If such remedies were prescribed by state law there can be no doubt but that plaintiffs would be obliged to exhaust those remedies before seeking a declaratory decree³ or the extraordinary relief of a court of equity.⁴

While the precise question here presented has not been specifically determined by the highest court of the State of Texas there is language to be found in the Texas decisions which convinces us that if this question were ever presented that court would decide that there is no administrative agency set up under the Texas law with authority or jurisdiction to determine constitutional questions. In Henderson v. Miller, Tex.Civ.App., 286 S.W. 501, 506 (writ ref.), the court in upholding its authority to determine the validity of an act of the Legislature affecting independent school districts said "It is manifest that neither the board of county school trustees, nor the state superintendent, nor the state board of education, is vested with any jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality of any statute, or the question whether or not any action by any board of school trustees is violative of constitutional rights. Authority to determine such questions is exclusively the function of the judiciary, * * *." In Independent School Dist. v. Salvatierra, Tex.Civ.App., 33 S.W.2d 790, 795, the court had occasion to consider whether the board of trustees of an independent school district⁵ had arbitrarily discriminated...