Stout v. JAFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

• Decision Date: 15 November 1972
• Docket Number: No. 71-2804,71-2979,72-1102 and 72-2056.,71-2804
• Citation: 466 F.2d 1213
• Parties: Linda STOUT et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant, v. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Defendants-Appellees, Board of Education of the City of Pleasant Grove, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellee-Cross-Appellant. Linda STOUT et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee, v. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Defendants-Appellees, Board of Education of the City of Pleasant Grove, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant. Linda STOUT et al., Plaintiffs, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee, Charles OWENS et al., Movants-Appellants, v. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Defendants-Appellees. Linda STOUT, by her father, and next friend, Blevin Stout, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Defendants-Appellees, United States of America, Intervenor.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

466 F.2d 1213 (1972)

Linda STOUT et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant, v. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Defendants-Appellees, Board of Education of the City of Pleasant Grove, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellee-Cross-Appellant.

Linda STOUT et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee, v. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Defendants-Appellees, Board of Education of the City of Pleasant Grove, Defendant-Intervenor-Appellant.

Linda STOUT et al., Plaintiffs, United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee, Charles OWENS et al., Movants-Appellants, v. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Linda STOUT, by her father, and next friend, Blevin Stout, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al., Defendants-Appellees, United States of America, Intervenor.

Nos. 71-2804,^* 71-2979,^* 72-1102^* and 72-2056.^*

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

September 7, 1972.

Rehearing and Rehearing Denied November 27 and December 15, 1972.

U. W. Clemon, Birmingham, Ala., Solomon Seay, Jr., Montgomery, Ala., and Jack Greenberg, New York City, for Linda Stout and others.

Wayman G. Sherrer, U. S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., Brian K. Landsberg, Atty., David L. Norman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Theodore J. Garrish, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., A. Lattimore Gaston, Asst. U. S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., Frank M. Dunbaugh, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Civil Rights Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for the United States.

Thomas R. McEniry, Bessemer, Ala., Maurice Bishop, County Atty., Robert S. Vance, Beavers, Shannon, Harrison & Odom, Jack H. Harrison, Jos. F. Johnston, Birmingham, Ala., for Jefferson County Bd. of Ed. and others, appellees.

Thomas R. McEniry, Bessemer, Ala., for Bd. of Ed. of City of Pleasant Grove, appellant.

Palmer W. Norris, James H. Faulkner, Birmingham, Ala., for Charles Owens and others, appellants.

Before THORNBERRY, CLARK and INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied November 27 and December 15, 1972.

BY THE COURT:

The issues in all of the above cases relate to desegregation of the schools operated by the Jefferson County Board of Education, Jefferson County, Alabama. In Stout v. Jefferson County, Bd. of Education, 448 F.2d 403 (5th Cir., 1971), we remanded the case to the district court with directions that it require the school boards (including within the terms of its order a direction to any splinter school board, i. e., those created since the filing of the original desegregation suit) to implement a plan which complies with Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 28 L.Ed.2d 554. Several school districts were affected, including the districts of Pleasant Grove, Vestavia, Midfield and Homewood all having been created since 1965. In Stout, supra, we said of these post-desegregation suit school districts:

"Likewise, where the formulation of splinter school districts, albeit validly created under state law, have the effect2 of thwarting the implementation of a unitary school system, the district court may not, consistent with the teachings of Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg, supra, recognize their creation.3

2 The process of desegregation shall not be swayed by innocent action which results in prolonging an unconstitutional dual school system. The existence of unconstitutional discrimination is not to be determined solely by intent. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S.Ct. 1401, 3 L.Ed.2d 5 (1958); Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, 190 F.Supp. 861 (E.D.La.,1960); aff\'d sub nom. City of New Orleans v. Bush, 366 U.S. 212, 81 S.Ct. 1091, 6 L.Ed.2d 239 (1961); United States v. Texas, 330 F.Supp. 235, Part II (E.D.Tex., 1971); aff\'d as modified, United States v. Texas, 447 F.2d 441 (5th Cir., 1971).

3 See, Lee et al., v. Macon County Board of Education, 448 F.2d 746 (5th Cir., 1971)."

The district court on remand correctly interpreted our prior order and directed the splinter districts to accept a proper role in the desegregation of the county system. Pleasant Grove refused to accept its role and was unwilling to live within the district court's orders. After giving Pleasant Grove an opportunity to conform to the overall plan and being faced with Pleasant Grove's demonstrable reluctance to commit itself to the effort, the district court ordered that the Jefferson County Board of Education take up the operation of the Pleasant Grove district schools. Pleasant Grove appealed. Because the issue of splinter districts was fundamental to the total desegregation effort of the Jefferson County district, and because the Supreme Court accepted certiorari in two Fourth Circuit cases,¹ whose views on splinter districts were contrary to that of this circuit, we have held this case for the Supreme Court's determination.

In Wright v. Council of the City of Emporia, 407 U.S. 451, 92 S.Ct. 2196, 33 L.Ed.2d 51 (1972) and United States v. Scotland Neck City Board of Education, 407 U.S. 484, 92 S.Ct. 2214, 33 L.Ed.2d 75 (1972) the Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit and cited our prior order in this case and Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, 448 F.2d 746 (1971), with approval. See Cisneros v. Corpus Christi Independent School District, 448 F.2d 1392 (5th Cir., 1972).

In light of the Supreme Court's reversal of the Fourth Circuit in Wright, supra and Scotland Neck City Board, supra, and its reliance on our prior Stout order, we affirm the district court's determinations as regards the splinter school districts.² We note, however, that the splinter district or districts are not forever vassals of the county board. The courts should not remove local control indefinitely. Orders based on the splinter district's refusal to accept the role dictated by Wright, supra, Lee v. Macon, supra, and Stout, supra, should be reviewed school year to school year, or more frequently as may be appropriate. Sovereignty should be returned when Pleasant Grove demonstrates to the district court's satisfaction by clear and convincing evidence that it is able and intends to comply with the court's orders concerning its role in the desegregation of the Jefferson County School District. When that showing is made, then the court should withdraw its prior order, but with the clear understanding that it will be reinstated should the district's commitment to desegregation falter.

It is obvious that the merits of the desegregation plan ordered implemented for the 1971-72 school year are moot. This result is not an abdication of judicial duty. It is a consequence of the deference required of us to the action of the Supreme Court in granting certiorari to the precise issue involved in this case. As far as the merits of the district court's order pertain to the school years 1972-73 and thereafter, the issues are not moot. Therefore, on the merits we vacate the district court's orders so far as they relate to the following attendance zones:

Wenonah (Lipscomb), Midfield, Brighton, Fultondale (Springdale), Minor and Leeds, and require the District Court to forthwith conduct such further proceedings as that Court may determine necessary or appropriate in the course of applying the desegregation remedy outlined in this court\'s en banc opinion in Cisneros, et al. v. Corpus Christi Independent School District, supra.

With the further exception regarding the plan's over-all transportation requirements and majority to minority transfer provisions, the district court's student assignment plan for 1972-73 is approved as complying with Swann. So far as such order pertains to the transportation requirements of minority to majority transfers and the priority which those transfers shall receive, the court's order is vacated, with instructions to implement a majority to minority transfer program as provided in Singleton v. Jackson Municipal Separate School District, 419 F.2d 1211 (5th Cir., 1970), en banc. See also Brown v. Board of Education of the City of Bessemer, Alabama et al., 464 F.2d 382 (5th Cir., 1972); Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, 448 F.2d 746 (5th Cir., 1971). Compare Cisneros, et al. v. Corpus Christi Independent School District, supra.

The issue raised in the most recent appeal, No. 72-2056, pertains to the construction of a new school, whose location was determined by assertedly neutral, i. e., non-racial, criterion. The district court, in its order approving this new construction, concluded that even if a new study was ordered which was not...