Knight v. Alabama, CIV.A. CV-83-M-1676-.

• Decision Date: 05 October 2004
• Docket Number: No. CIV.A. CV-83-M-1676-.,CIV.A. CV-83-M-1676-.
• Parties: John F. KNIGHT, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Intervenors, United States of America Plaintiff, v. The State of ALABAMA, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama

458 F.Supp.2d 1273

John F. KNIGHT, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Intervenors United States of America Plaintiff, v. The State of ALABAMA, et al., Defendants.

No. CIV.A. CV-83-M-1676-.

United States District Court, N.D. Alabama.

October 5, 2004.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Alice H. Martin, U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney's Office, Birmingham, AL, James U. Blacksher, Birmingham, AL, Craig M. Crenshaw, Jr., U.S. Department of Justice-Civil Rights Division, Educational Opportunities, Litigation Sec, Washington, DC, Jeremiah Glassman, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Educational Opportunities Section, Washington, DC, Susan J. Watterson, Birmingham, AL, Sarah L. Thompson, Sarah L. Thompson, Attorney at Law, Northport, AL, Naomi Hosea Truman, Housing Authority of the Birmingham District, Birmingham, AL, Demetrius C. Newton, Birmingham, AL, James L. North, James L. North & Associates, Birmingham, AL, Deval L. Patrick, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Criminal Section, Washington, DC, Leslie M. Proll, Naacp Legal Defense & Educational Fund Inc, Washington DC, Sharon D Simmons, U.S. Attorney's Office, Birmingham, AL, for U.S. of America, Plaintiff.

Edward S. Allen, Balch & Bingham LLP, Birmingham, AL, Gregory M. Biggs, State of Alabama Department of Corrections Legal Division, Montgomery, AL, M. Stanford Blanton, Balch & Bingham LLP, Birmingham, AL, Ernest N. Blasingame, Jr., Florence, AL, David R. Boyd, Balch & Bingham LLP, Montgomery, AL, Richard F. Calhoun, Calhoun Faulk Watkins Clower & Cox, Troy, AL, J. Russell Campbell, Balch & Bingham LLP, Birmingham, AL, Milton C. Davis, Tuskeegee, AL, Terry G. Davis, Davis & Hatcher LLC, Montgomery, AL, Armand G. Derfner, Derfner Altman & Wilborn LLC, Charleston, SC, Jeffery A. Foshee, Foshee & George LLC, Montgomery, AL, Edward M George, Foshee & George LLC, Montgomery, AL, Fred D. Gray, Gray Langford Sapp, McGowan Gray & Nathanson, Tuskegee, AL, Stanley F. Gray, Gray Langford Sapp, McGowan Gray & Nathanson, Tuskegee, FL, Edgar R. Haden, Balch & Bingham LLP, Birmingham, AL, Robert M. Hill, Jr., Robert M. Hill Jr., Florence, AL, Robert D. Hunter, Altec Inc, Birmingham, AL, Jim R. Ippolito, Jr., Alabama Department of Transportation, Montgomery, Carl E. Johnson, Jr., Bishop Colvin Johnson & Kent, Birmingham, AL, Michael G. Kendrick, Waldrep Stewart & Kendrick LLC, Birmingham, AL, Robin G. Laurie, Balch & Bingham LLP, Montgomery, AL, Norma M. Lemley, University of Alabama System University Counsel, Tuscaloosa, AL, Thomas M. Lovett, University of North Alabama, Florence, AL, Richard N. Meadows, State of Alabama, Personnel Department, Montgomery, AL, Larry T. Menefee, Montgomery, AL, Stanley J. Murphy, Murphy & Murphy LLC, Tuscaloosa, AL, William F. Murray, Jr., Burr & Forman LLP, Birmingham, AL, Darnell D. Coley, State of Alabama Department of Education, Montgomery, AL, Larry E. Craven, Alabama Department of Education, Montgomery, AL, Robert W. Rieder, University of Alabama System, Huntsville, AL, C. Glenn Powell, University of Alabama System, Office of Counsel, Tuscaloosa, AL, William K. Thomas, Cabaniss Johnston, Gardner Dumas & O'Neal, Birmingham, AL, Jean Walker Tucker, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL, Mark T. Waggoner, Hand Arendall LLC, Birmingham, AL, Joseph A. Wallace, Elkins, WV, Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Whatley Drake LLC, Birmingham, AL, Michael R. White, Sr., Alabama Department of Education, Montgomery, AL, R. M. Woodrow, Doster & Woodrow, Anniston, AL, Reginald L. Sorrells, Alabama Department of Education, Montgomery, AL, John B. Tally, Jr., Adams & Reese/Lange Simpson LLP, Birmingham, AL, Gerald A. Templeton, The Templeton Group PC, Birmingham, AL, for Alabama, State of, Defendant.

Whit Colvin, Bishop Colvin Johnson & Kent, Birmingham, AL, for University of Montevallo, Defendant.

J. Cecil Gardner, Gardner Middlebrooks Gibbons Kittrell Olsen Walker & Hill PC, Mobile, AL, for Jonathan R. Borden, Dr. Robert W. Drakeford, Movants.

William F. Gardner, Cabaniss Johnston, Gardner Dumas & O'Neal, Birmingham, AL, for Alabama, State of, Troy State University, Defendants.

C. A. Gonzalez, Atlanta, GA, for Carlos A. Gonzalez, Miscellaneous Pro se.

Edward A. Hosp, Maynard Cooper & Gale PC, Birmingham, AL, for Board of Trustees of University of Alabama, Defendant.

Mary Kirby, United States District Court Northern District of Georgia, Rome, GA, for Mary Kirby, Miscellaneous.

Michael Vance McCrary, Gardner Middlebrooks Fleming Gibbons & Kittrell, Birmingham AL, for Joe L. Reed, Intervenor Defendant.

Candis A. MeGowan, John D. Saxon PC, Birmingham, AL, for Jonathan R. Borden, Dr. Robert W. Drakeford, Movants.

Ramadanah M Salaam, Thomas Means Gillis & Seay, PC, Montgomery, for Alabama State University Board of Trustees, Defendant.

Braxton Schell, Jr., Braxton Schell Jr. PC, Birmingham, AL, for Alabama, State of, Alabama A & M University (AAMU), Defendants.

Solomon S. Seay, Jr., Solomon S. Seay Jr. PC, Montgomery, AL, for Alabama, State of, Alabama State University Board of Trustees, Defendants.

Kenneth L Thomas, Thomas Means Gillis & Seay, PC, Montgomery, for Alabama State University Board of Trustees, Defendant.

Kimberly C. Walker, Gardner Middlebrooks, Gibbons Olsen & Walker PC, Mobile, AL, for Joe L. Reed, Intervenor Defendant.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

MURPHY, District Judge.

This is a desegregation lawsuit involving all public universities in the State of Alabama and a plaintiff class consisting of all black citizens of the State of Alabama. The case is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Additional Relief with Respect to State Funding of Public Higher Education [3205].

I. Background

A. Summary of the Knight Litigation

1. On January 15, 1981, John F. Knight, Jr. and a class of other alumni, students, and faculty members of Alabama State University ("ASU") filed this lawsuit in the Middle District of Alabama, attacking vestiges of discrimination in the State of Alabama's public higher education system. Knight v. Alabama, 787 F.Supp. 1030, 1048 (N.D.Ala.1991) ("Knight I"). The Court subsequently held two bench trials, the first in 1991, which lasted six months, and the second in 1995, which lasted six weeks. In both of those bench trials, the Court found that the vestiges of segregation remained within the Alabama system of public higher education, and that those vestiges violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as the Federal Constitution. Knight I, 787 F.Supp. at 1368; Knight v. Alabama, 900 F.Supp. 272, 280-81 (N.D.Ala.1995) ("Alabama II").

2. As a result of the Court's findings in those bench trials, the Court has fashioned and approved a number of remedies, too voluminous to recount here. Those remedies are calculated to eliminate the vestiges of historical discrimination within the Alabama system of public higher education. The Court has also retained active jurisdiction over the case to the present time. Pursuant to this jurisdiction, the Court has appointed a Monitor and an Oversight Committee to oversee on a daily basis the administration of the Courtordered remedies in this litigation. The Court also conducts periodic reviews of the effectiveness of the Courtordered remedies.

B. Plaintiffs'Claims

3. Plaintiffs contend that serious underfunding of the Educational Trust Fund ("ETF"), from which appropriations are made for both K-12 and higher education, has jeopardized the success of the remedies crafted by the Court to eliminate the vestiges of historical discrimination in the State of Alabama's system of public higher education.

4. Plaintiffs claim that adequate state funding is necessary for fashioning an effective, educationally sound, and practicable remedy for the State of Alabama's history of de jure racial discrimination. Specifically, Plaintiffs claim that adequate funding is necessary for: (1) recruiting and retaining of black faculty members and highranking administrators at historically white institutions ("HWT"); (2) providing ASU and Alabama A & M University ("AAMU") with the necessary resources to overcome a century of underfunding by the State; (3) providing AMU and AAMU the ability to fund adequately scholarships to attract other-race students after the Court-ordered scholarships expire; and (4) developing new, high-quality programs at ASU and AAMU, including the capital facilities and faculty necessary to operate them.

5. According to Plaintiffs, severe cuts in state funding have severely impeded the ability of ASU and AAMU to implement successfully remedial programs calculated to spur growth in academic, research, and public service functions. Plaintiffs specifically point to Alabama's property tax system, which Plaintiffs claim is unfair, inadequate, and unconstitutional. Plaintiffs argue that because of low and inadequate property taxes, which are intended to be the primary source of 12 funding, the State of Alabama has been forced to allocate an increasingly greater percentage of funds from the ETF to K-12 appropriations. As a result, over the past several years, all of the public state universities have been forced to increase tuition dramatically. Plaintiffs submit that the State's tax burden disproportionately falls on the low-income portion of the population, which remains predominately black, and consequently acts as a barrier against blacks obtaining public higher education.

6. Plaintiffs claim that the State's tax system is traceable to a prior de jure segregation regime. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that the restrictions on the amount of taxes that can be levied on real property are directly traceable to a policy of shielding the real property of white landowners from taxes that would benefit the education of blacks—a policy that Plaintiffs claim persists to this day. Plaintiffs identify six provisions of the Alabama Constitution that they claim are traceable to a legislative intent to preserve racial segregation throughout ...