Liddell v. Special Admin. Bd. of the Transitional Sch. Dist. of St. Louis

• Decision Date: 05 July 2018
• Docket Number: No. 16-3437,16-3437
• Citation: 894 F.3d 959
• Parties: Deric James LIDDELL; Caldwell/NAACP, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Ken Ross, Jr.; LeDiva Pierce, Intervenor Plaintiffs-Appellants, United States of America, Intervenor Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD OF the TRANSITIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT OF the CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Defendant-Appellee, Special School District, Defendant, State of Missouri, Defendant-Appellee, St. Louis County; City Board; Lindbergh School District, Defendants, Confluence Academy; City of St. Louis, Missouri, Amici on Behalf of Appellant(s).
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

894 F.3d 959

Deric James LIDDELL; Caldwell/NAACP, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

Ken Ross, Jr.; LeDiva Pierce, Intervenor Plaintiffs-Appellants,

United States of America, Intervenor Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD OF the TRANSITIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT OF the CITY OF ST. LOUIS, Defendant-Appellee,

Special School District, Defendant,

State of Missouri, Defendant-Appellee,

St. Louis County; City Board; Lindbergh School District, Defendants,

Confluence Academy; City of St. Louis, Missouri, Amici on Behalf of Appellant(s).

No. 16-3437

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: September 20, 2017
Filed: July 5, 2018

William Auguston Douthit, Chesterfield, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee Deric James Liddell.

Veronica Johnson, HOWARD & ASSOCIATES, Saint Louis, MO, for Plaintiff-Appellee Caldwell/NAACP.

Charles W. Hatfield, Jeremy Root, STINSON & LEONARD, Jefferson City, MO, for Intervenors Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Torey B. Cummings, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Appellate Section, Christine Monta, Attorney, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Civil Rights Division, Washington, D.C., for Intervenor Plaintiff-Appellee United States of America.

Bridget Hoy, Ronald Alan Norwood, LEWIS & RICE, Saint Louis, MO, for Defendant-Appellee Special Administrative Board of the Transitional School District of the City of St. Louis.

Henry F. Luepke, III, ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, Saint Louis, MO, Jeremiah J. Morgan, Sr., Deputy Solicitor, for Defendant-Appellee State of Missouri.

Margaret A. Hesse, TUETH & KEENEY, Kameron Wade Murphy, Saint Louis, MO, Amicus on Behalf of Appellant(s) for Confluence Academy.

Michael Alan Garvin, FRANK LAW FIRM, Matthew M. Moak, CITY OF ST. LOUIS LAW DEPARTMENT, Saint Louis, MO, Amicus on Behalf of Appellant(s) for City of St. Louis, Missouri.

Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

COLLOTON, Circuit Judge.

894 F.3d 962

In April 2016, several parties to the decades-old St. Louis public school desegregation litigation moved to enforce the 1999 Desegregation Settlement Agreement. The moving parties were plaintiffs in the original case, known as the Liddell and Caldwell-NAACP plaintiffs (the Plaintiffs), and the Special Administrative Board of the Transitional School District of the City of St. Louis (the Special Administrative Board). The Plaintiffs and the Special Administrative Board (together the Joint Movants) argued that the State, through the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, was reallocating certain tax proceeds to St. Louis charter schools in violation of the Settlement Agreement. The Joint Movants asked the court to order the State to comply with the 1999 Desegregation Settlement Agreement by (1) discontinuing the practice of allocating the tax proceeds in question to the charter schools, and (2) reimbursing the Special Administrative Board for past wrongful allocations.

On May 31, 2016, St. Louis charter school parents Ken Ross, Jr., and LeDiva Pierce moved to intervene as plaintiffs as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). Alternatively, the charter school parents sought permissive intervention under Rule 24(b). The charter school parents argue that the pending motion to enforce seeks to decrease funding for charter schools and thereby threatens their interest in "educational funding and educational opportunities" for their children. Ross and Pierce seek to intervene on behalf of themselves and "all others similarly situated."

The district court denied the charter parents' motion to intervene on the grounds that the parents lacked an injury in fact as required to establish standing to intervene. We disagree and conclude that the charter parents have standing. We therefore reverse and remand for the district court to determine in the first instance whether the charter parents meet the requirements under Rule 24 for intervention as of right or for permissive intervention.

I.

The charter parents seek to intervene as plaintiffs in litigation that has been ongoing since 1972. To provide context, we

894 F.3d 963

begin with a brief history of this litigation and the legislative backdrop.

In 1972, Minnie Liddell, on behalf of African American school children in St. Louis and their parents, filed suit against the St. Louis Board of Education (the City Board). Liddell alleged that the City Board and its administrators had perpetuated racial segregation and discrimination in St. Louis public schools in violation of her children's constitutional rights. See Liddell v. Bd. of Educ. , 469 F.Supp. 1304 (E.D. Mo. 1979).

In 1973, the district court certified the Liddell plaintiff class. In 1976, another group of students and parents, together with the NAACP, intervened in the litigation. We refer to them as the Caldwell-NAACP plaintiffs. See Liddell v. Caldwell , 546 F.2d 768, 769 (8th Cir. 1976). In 1977, the State of Missouri, the Missouri State Board of Education, and the State Commissioner of Education were made defendants. Liddell , 469 F.Supp. at 1312.

In 1983, the parties agreed on a comprehensive desegregation plan that provided for a voluntary suburban transfer program, magnet schools, new education programs, capital improvements, and improved vocational education in the school district. Liddell v. Bd. of Educ. , 567 F.Supp. 1037 (E.D. Mo. 1983). The State and the City Board funded this plan.

In 1996, the State moved for a declaration that the City Board no longer operated a segregated school system and for relief from its funding obligations under the desegregation plan. After three years of negotiations, the parties reached, and the court approved, the 1999 Desegregation Settlement Agreement (the Agreement).

Under the Agreement, the parties agreed that the City Board would continue various remediation programs. In exchange, the St. Louis Public School District (the District) would receive a minimum of $60 million in funding per year, consisting of a combination of state aid and local tax revenue. Senate Bill 781, passed in 1998, set forth a revised funding formula for calculating state aid to the District. The remainder of the Agreement's funding came from a "desegregation sales tax" that St. Louis voters approved on February 2, 1999.

Senate Bill 781, in addition to providing state funding under the Settlement Agreement, created St. Louis charter schools and provided for their funding. The 1998 law required the District to pay charter schools a per pupil portion of its state aid for each resident student who chose to attend a charter school rather than a District school. From 1999 until 2006, however, the District did not include any revenue raised from the desegregation sales tax in the funds that the District transferred to the charter schools.

In 2006, the General Assembly passed Senate Bill 287, which revised the state aid funding formula for public schools. See generally Mo. Rev. Stat. § 163.031 (2006). Senate Bill 287 allowed charter schools to be formed as "local educational agencies," meaning that St. Louis charter schools would receive aid directly from the State instead of the District. Under the 2006 law, when a charter school declares itself a local educational agency, the State must "reduce...