United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, El Dorado Division
ORDER
Susan
O. Hickey, United States District Judge.
Before
the Court is the Junction City School District's
(“Junction City”) Motion for Declaratory
Judgment, or Alternatively, for Clarification of Previous
Orders, or Alternatively, for Modification of Previous
Orders. (ECF No. 2). The United States has filed a response
to the motion. (ECF No. 20). The Arkansas Department of
Education (“ADE”) and the Arkansas State Board of
Education (“SBE”) have filed a response in
opposition. (ECF No. 26). The Court finds the matter ripe for
consideration.
I.
BACKGROUND
On
February 7, 1966, Plaintiff United States of America
(“United States”) filed this action against
Junction City, seeking to dismantle the district's
operation of a dual school system. (See ECF No.
20-1). On June 21, 1966, the United States filed a Motion for
Preliminary Injunction requesting that Junction City and
other defendants be enjoined from continuing to assign
students to particular schools because of their race;
operating separate school buses for black and white students;
segregating faculty and staff based on race; and maintaining
any distinctions in the operation and management of Junction
City based on race or color. (See ECF No. 20-2, p.
5). On August 15, 1966, the Court granted the United
States' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and issued an
order enjoining Junction City from “maintaining and
operating racially segregated public schools” and
directing Junction City to eliminate its dual school system
“with all deliberate speed.” (ECF No. 20-3, p.
3). On September 8, 1966, Junction City responded by filing a
“freedom-of-choice” desegregation plan to which
the United States objected and proposed its own plan. (ECF
No. 2-4). On November 29, 1966, the Court entered an order
finding that neither proposed plan was acceptable and
directing Defendants to “institute a good faith freedom
of choice plan for desegregation of the 11th and 12th grades
beginning in January 1967.” (ECF No. 1, p. 3). The
Court further ordered Junction City and other defendants to
submit a report to the Court regarding its implementation of
the freedom-of-choice plan. On August 14, 1967, the Court
issued a decree requiring Junction City to implement a
freedom-of-choice plan and setting forth the procedural
framework for implementing the plan. (See ECF No.
20-4).
On May
24, 1968, the United States moved the Court for an order
requiring the consolidation of the Junction City schools.
After a hearing on the motion, the Court cancelled its decree
dated August 14, 1967, and ordered Junction City to
“propose an alternate plan for the conversion of the
school system to a unitary system in accordance with the
decisions of the Supreme Court made May 27, 1968, for all
students in attendance.” (ECF No. 2-1, p. 3). The Court
allowed Junction City to begin operating schools in September
1968 under the freedom-of-choice plan until the district
filed a consolidation plan in January 1969. (ECF No. 2-3).
The Court then issued several orders directing Junction City
to allow certain grades to attend school under the
freedom-of-choice plan and further directing the district to
consolidate all students in certain grades. (See
id.; see also ECF No. 2-5 (assigning students
grade 9-12 to Junction City High School and permitting
students from other grades to attend either Junction City
Elementary or Rosenwald School)).
On
October 23, 1970, the United States moved for further relief
against Junction City on the grounds that Junction City
failed to remedy its within-school segregation and its
segregated transportation system. (ECF No. 2-6). On November
20, 1970, the Court entered an Order (“the 1970
Order”) enjoining Defendants from “assigning
students to, or maintaining any homeroom, classroom, or other
school-related activity on the basis of race, color or
national origin.” (ECF No. 2-7). The Court's Order
further directed Defendants to redraw their bus routes and
reassign students to the buses on a non-racial basis.
Id. Junction City has since been operating under the
1970 Order, which requires Junction City to comply with
certain desegregations obligations.
In
1989, Arkansas enacted a school choice program. The Arkansas
Public School Choice Act of 1989 (the “1989 Act”)
provided for a school choice program whereby a student could
apply to attend a public school in a district that the
student did not reside in, subject to certain limitations.
The 1989 Act provided further that “[n]o student may
transfer to a nonresident district where the percentage of
enrollment for the student's race exceeds that percentage
in his resident district” and that “[i]n any
instance where the foregoing provisions would result in a
conflict with a desegregation court order, the terms of the
order shall govern.” (ECF No. 2-11, §§
11(a-b)). Thus, the 1989 Act did not hinder Junction
City's ongoing efforts to remove all vestiges of previous
segregation because the statute allowed Junction City to
reject segregative transfers in and out of the district.
In
2013, the Arkansas Public School Choice Act of 2013 (the
“2013 Act”) was enacted, expressly repealing the
1989 Act. The 2013 Act again allowed students to apply to
attend a nonresident public school district. However, the
2013 Act did not contain the 1989 Act's limiting language
barring segregative inter-district transfers.[1] The 2013 Act
allowed any school district to annually declare itself exempt
from participating in school choice if said participation
would conflict with the school district's obligations
under a federal court's “desegregation plan
regarding the effects of past racial segregation in student
assignment” or a federal court order “remedying
the effects of past racial segregation.” (ECF No. 2-12,
p. 11). Any school district that made this declaration would
be exempt from participating in school choice for that school
year.
In
2015, the Arkansas Public School Choice Act of 2015 (the
“2015 Act”) was enacted, thereby amending the
2013 Act. The 2015 Act, among other things, eliminated the
school districts' ability to declare themselves exempt
from participating in school choice due to a conflict with
existing obligations under a federal court's
desegregation plan or order. Instead, the 2015 Act required
that a school district wishing to be exempt from
participating in school choice must submit proof to the ADE
“that the school district has a genuine conflict under
an active desegregation order or active court-approved
desegregation plan with the [2015 Act.]” (ECF No. 2-13,
p. 5). If the school district submitted proof of an order or
plan to the ADE, the provisions of the order or plan would
govern, thereby exempting the school district from
participating in school choice.
In
2017, the Arkansas General Assembly passed Act 1066 of the
Regular Session of 2017 (the “2017 Act”), thereby
amending the 2015 Act. The 2017 Act, among other things,
amended the 2015 Act's language allowing school districts
to seek an exemption from participating in school choice.
Under the 2017 Act, school districts seeking to be exempt
from participation in school choice must now submit proof to
the ADE “that the school district has a genuine
conflict under an active desegregation order or active
court-approved desegregation plan that explicitly
limits the transfer of students between school
districts.” (ECF No. 2-14, p. 2) (emphasis added).
The ADE evaluates school districts' applications for an
exemption from school choice and determines whether to grant
an exemption. The SBE decides any appeals of the ADE's
decisions regarding school choice exemption applications.
From
2013 through 2017, Junction City either declared itself
exempt or applied for exemptions from participating in school
choice pursuant to the school choice law in effect at the
time. Each year, the ADE and SBE observed these declared
conflicts with school choice and included Junction City on a
public list of school districts not participating in school
choice. Accordingly, Junction City did not participate in
school choice at all while the 2013 Act and 2015 Act were in
effect.
On
December 27, 2017, Junction City applied for an exemption
from participating in school choice under the 2017 Act for
the 2018-2019 school year and submitted supporting documents
to the ADE. On January 19, 2018, the ADE denied Junction
City's request for an exemption, finding that Junction
City failed to demonstrate that it was subject to a federal
court's active desegregation order “explicitly
limiting the interdistrict transfer of
students.” (ECF No. 2-19) (emphasis in original). The
ADE found that documentation submitted by Junction City as
proof of its conflict did not explicitly limit inter-district
student transfers. Thus, the ADE concluded that Junction City
would be required to participate in school choice for the
2018-2019 school year.
Junction
City appealed the ADE's decision to the SBE. The SBE
heard Junction City's appeal on March 8, 2018 and, in a
subsequent order dated March 26, 2018, upheld the ADE's
decision that Junction City would not receive an exemption
and, therefore, must participate in school choice for the
2018-2019 school year. (ECF No. 2-22).
On May
14, 2018, Junction City filed the instant Motion for
Declaratory Judgment, or Alternatively, for Clarification of
Previous Orders, or Alternatively, for Modification of
Previous Orders (hereinafter “Motion for Declaratory
Judgment”). (ECF No. 2). In that motion, Junction City
states that it is still subject to its desegregation
obligations imposed by the Court's prior orders and that
participation in school choice would have a segregative
impact on Junction City, thereby causing it to violate the
Court's previous orders. Accordingly, Junction City
asserts that it has a conflict with taking part in school
choice pursuant to the 2017 Act. Junction City seeks, by
various alternative means, a finding that it is prohibited
from taking part in school choice and/or a declaration that
portions of the 2017 Act are unconstitutional.
On June
15, 2018, the Court issued an order certifying Junction
City's constitutional challenge and sending notice to the
Arkansas Attorney General's Office of the same, pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.1(b). (ECF No. 5). On
June 21, 2018, the ADE and SBE filed a motion to intervene in
this case for the limited purpose of opposing Junction
City's Motion for Declaratory Judgment. (ECF No. 13). On
June 22, 2018, the Court held a status conference in which
Junction City, the United States, and counsel from the
Arkansas Attorney General's Office participated. On July
3, 2018, the United States filed its response to Junction
City's Motion for Declaratory Judgment, posing no
opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 20). On July 9, 2018, the
Court granted the ADE and SBE's motion to intervene,
thereby allowing those parties to intervene for the limited
purpose of opposing Junction City's Motion for
Declaratory Judgment. (ECF No. 21). On July 20, 2018, the ADE
and SBE filed their response in opposition to Junction
City's Motion for Declaratory Judgment. (ECF No. 26).
On
August 1, 2018, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on
Junction City's separate motion for preliminary
injunctive relief. At the hearing, the parties offered
evidence and witness testimony, much of which is also
relevant and applicable to the instant motion. On September
11, 2018, Junction City informed the Court that it did not
desire an additional evidentiary hearing regarding the
instant motion. (ECF No. 41). On September 21, 2018, the ADE
and SBE informed the Court that they also did not desire an
additional evidentiary hearing regarding the instant motion.
(ECF No. 42). Accordingly, the Court finds the matter fully
briefed and ripe for consideration.
II.
DISCUSSION
Junction
City seeks a ruling that it is prohibited from taking part in
school choice. Specifically, Junction City asks that the
Court confirm its conflict with participating in school
choice and declare void the SBE's March 26, 2018 order
requiring that Junction City participate in school choice.
Junction City asks the Court to do so through one of the
following means: (1) modifying the Court's 1970 Order to
prohibit segregative inter-district transfers in light of
changes in Arkansas law, occurring with the 2013 repeal of
the 1989 Act and the subsequent enactment of the 2017 Act;
(2) clarifying that the Court's 1970 Order, as written,
prohibits segregative inter-district transfers; (3) issuing a
declaratory judgment confirming that Junction City has a
conflict with participating in school choice because it
remains subject to a federal court desegregation order and
ordering the SBE to reverse its March 26, 2018 order
...