Williams ex rel. J.E. v. Reeves

Decision Date02 April 2020
Docket NumberNo. 19-60069,19-60069
Citation954 F.3d 729
Parties Indigo WILLIAMS, ON BEHALF OF her minor child J.E.; Dorothy Haymer, on behalf of her minor child, D.S.; Precious Hughes, on behalf of her minor child, A.H.; Sarde Graham, on behalf of her minor child, S.T., Plaintiffs - Appellants v. Tate REEVES, in his official capacity as Governor of Mississippi; Philip Gunn, in his official capacity as Speaker of the Mississippi House of Representatives; Tate Reeves, in his official capacity as Lieutenant Governor of Mississippi; Delbert Hosemann, in his official capacity as Secretary of State of Mississippi; Carey M. Wright, in her official capacity as State Superintendent of Education and Executive Secretary of MS State Board of Education; Rosemary Aultman, in her official capacity as Chair of the Mississippi State Board of Education; Jason Dean, in his official capacity as Member of the Mississippi State Board of Education; Buddy Bailey, in his official capacity as Member of the Mississippi State Board of Education; Kami Bumgarner, in her official capacity as Member of the Mississippi State Board of Education; Karen Elam, in her official capacity as Member of the Mississippi State Board of Education; Johnny Franklin, in his official capacity as Member of the Mississippi State Board of Education; William Harold Jones, in his official capacity as Member of the Mississippi State Board of Education; John Kelly, in his official capacity as Member of the Mississippi State Board of Education; Charles McClelland, in his official capacity as Member of the Mississippi State Board of Education, Defendants - Appellees
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

William B. Bardwell, Esq., Attorney, Christine Bischoff, Southern Poverty Law Center, Jackson, MS, Rita Bender, William Bender, Skellenger Bender, P.S., Seattle, WA, Brad Elias, Anton Metlitsky, O'Melveny & Myers, L.L.P., New York, NY, Jason Zarrow, O'Melveny & Myers, L.L.P., Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Krissy C. Nobile, Esq., Mississippi Attorney General's Office, Civil Litigation, Jackson, MS, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before JOLLY, GRAVES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge:

Five years after the end of the Civil War, the Mississippi Readmission Act of 1870 reseated Mississippi’s representatives in Congress, formally restoring Mississippi’s rights as a member of the Union. By the plain terms of the Act, the State’s readmission to Congress was subject to several "fundamental conditions," including a restriction prohibiting the State from "amend[ing] or chang[ing]" its Constitution in such a way that it "deprive[s] any citizen or class of citizens of the United States of the school rights and privileges secured by the constitution of said State." 16 Stat. 67 (1870).

The plaintiffs in this lawsuit are low-income African-American women whose children attend public schools in Mississippi. They filed suit against multiple state officials in 2017, alleging that the current version of the Mississippi Constitution violates the "school rights and privileges" condition of the Mississippi Readmission Act. The district court held that plaintiffs’ suit was barred by the Eleventh Amendment and dismissed the case. Though we agree that a portion of the relief plaintiffs seek is prohibited by the Eleventh Amendment, we hold that the lawsuit also partially seeks relief that satisfies the Ex parte Young exception to sovereign immunity. Accordingly, we AFFIRM in part and VACATE and REMAND in part.

I.

When the Confederate states seceded from the Union, their congressional seats became vacant, leaving them without representation in the Senate and the House of Representatives. See Joint Committee on Reconstruction, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 1866 S. Rept. 112, x–xxi. In order to regain representation in Congress at the end of the war, the former Confederate states were required to adopt a Constitution that guaranteed a republican form of government to all state residents. 14 Stat. 429 (1867). Mississippi adopted a new Constitution on May 15, 1868, which was subsequently ratified on December 1, 1869 (the "1868 Constitution"). See Miss. Const. of 1868. Article Eight of the 1868 Constitution contained a series of provisions related to education and the establishment and maintenance of schools in the State. Section 1 provided as follows:

As the stability of a republican form of government depends mainly upon the intelligence and virtue of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature to encourage, by all suitable means, the promotion of intellectual, scientific, moral, and agricultural improvement, by establishing a uniform system of free public schools, by taxation or otherwise, for all children between the ages of five and twenty-one years, and shall, as soon as practicable, establish schools of higher grade.

Id. , art. VIII § 1.

Shortly after the 1868 Constitution was ratified, Congress enacted the Mississippi Readmission Act, which declared that the State was now "entitled to representation in the Congress of the United States." 16 Stat. 67, 68 (1870). Despite this broad proclamation, Congress conditioned Mississippi’s newly-restored rights on three "fundamental" restrictions:

First, That the constitution of Mississippi shall never be so amended or changed as to deprive any citizen or class of citizens of the United States of the right to vote who are entitled to vote ....
Second, That it shall never be lawful for the said State to deprive any citizen of the United States, on account of his race, color, or previous condition of servitude, of the right to hold office ....
Third, That the constitution of Mississippi shall never be so amended or changed as to deprive any citizen or class of citizens of the United States of the school rights and privileges secured by the constitution of said State.

Id. Since 1868, the Mississippi Constitution’s education clause has been amended four times: in 1890, 1934, 1960, and, most recently, in 1987. The current version of the Constitution contains the following education clause, codified in Section 201 of Article 8:

The Legislature shall, by general law, provide for the establishment, maintenance and support of free public schools upon such conditions and limitations as the Legislature may prescribe.

Miss. Const., art. VIII § 201.

Plaintiffs argue that Section 201, as most recently amended in 1987, violates the "school rights and privileges" condition of the Mississippi Readmission Act. They highlight one specific difference between the 1868 and 1987 education clauses: While the 1868 version of the education clause required the Legislature to establish "a uniform system of free public schools," the 1987 version has no reference to "uniform[ity]," mandating only that the Legislature provide for the establishment of a system of "free public schools."1 Plaintiffs allege that the removal of the uniformity clause has caused significant disparities in the educational resources, opportunities, and outcomes afforded to children in Mississippi based on their race and the race of their classmates. They assert that the schools attended by plaintiffs’ children—Raines Elementary and Webster Street Elementary—"are emblematic" of the problems caused by the lack of a uniformity guarantee. The student body at both schools is over 95% African American, and over 95% of all students are eligible to receive free-or-reduced-price lunch, an indicator of poverty. Fewer than 11% of the students at these schools are proficient in reading and math, and the schools are currently rated "D" by the Mississippi Department of Education. In contrast, plaintiffs point to three "A"-rated schools—in Madison County, DeSoto County, and Gulfport—where the student populations are predominantly white and higher-income and over 65% of students are proficient in reading and math.

These disparities extend well beyond academic performance. Plaintiffs allege that their children attend schools where "[t]he ceilings are covered in wet spots, ... the paint is chipping off the walls," students are taught by inexperienced teachers, and extracurricular activities are limited or non-existent. At schools that are predominantly white, children benefit from experienced teachers, low student-teacher ratios, and extensive resources, including "an iPad e-Reader library," musical programming, and robust physical education.

According to plaintiffs, Mississippi’s removal of the word "uniform" from its Constitution resulted in a violation of the Readmission Act that has caused them to suffer a number of injuries, including illiteracy, a diminished likelihood of high school graduation, low rates of college attendance and college completion, and an increased likelihood of future poverty. In their first complaint, filed in May 2017, they sought a three-part declaratory judgment against fourteen state officials—all of whom play a role in managing and overseeing educational services in Mississippi. Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (b)(6). The district court granted defendantsmotion for dismissal under 12(b)(1), holding that plaintiffs’ complaint was barred by sovereign immunity. Although plaintiffs sued state officials rather than Mississippi itself, the court concluded that the relief plaintiffs seek would impermissibly "result in the issuing of an order that would, and could, operate only against the State." The district court also held that plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory relief was not covered by the Ex parte Young exception to the Eleventh Amendment because it sought to "rectify prior violations of the Mississippi Readmission Act" rather than prospectively dictate future conduct.

Plaintiffs timely moved for reconsideration of the district court’s order. The district court denied the motion on the merits, but amended the judgment to reflect the fact that the dismissal was without prejudice—a mandatory condition for a dismissal under Federal Rule...

To continue reading

Request your trial
83 cases
  • Berry v. Tex. Woman's Univ.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas
    • March 25, 2021
    ...seek prospective relief to redress ongoing conduct; and (3) allege a violation of federal, not state, law." Williams On Behalf of J.E. v. Reeves , 954 F.3d 729, 736 (5th Cir. 2020). As the Fifth Circuit has concluded, Ex parte Young is "an appropriate vehicle for pursuing reinstatement to a......
  • Whole Women's Health v. Jackson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas
    • August 25, 2021
    ...seek prospective relief to redress ongoing conduct; and (3) allege a violation of federal, not state, law." Williams ex rel. J.E. v. Reeves , 954 F.3d 729, 736 (5th Cir. 2020). The Supreme Court has instructed lower courts evaluating whether state officials are subject to suit under the exc......
  • Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, Inc. v. Phillips
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • January 20, 2022
    ...in his official capacity if the suit seeks prospective relief to redress an ongoing violation of federal law." Williams ex rel. J.E. v. Reeves , 954 F.3d 729, 736 (5th Cir. 2020), stay denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 141 S. Ct. 2480, 209 L.Ed.2d 543 (2021) (mem.). For Ex parte Young to apply, "thre......
  • Tex. Entm't Ass'n, Inc. v. Hegar
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • August 19, 2021
    ...(2) seek prospective relief that will redress ongoing conduct; and (3) allege a violation of federal law. Williams ex rel. J.E. v. Reeves , 954 F.3d 729, 736 (5th Cir. 2020). The district court found that this case fit squarely into the Ex Parte Young exception. We agree. TEA sued Hegar in ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT