United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, El Dorado Division
LARRY MILTON, et al. PLAINTIFFS
v.
MIKE HUCKABEE, et al. DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Susan
O. Hickey United States District Judge
Before
the Court is the Camden-Fairview School District's
(“Camden-Fairview”) Motion for Declaratory
Judgment, or Alternatively, for Clarification of Previous
Orders, or Alternatively, for Modification of Previous
Orders. (ECF No. 262). Plaintiffs have filed a response in
support of the motion. (ECF No. 264). A response in
opposition to the motion has been filed by the Governor of
the State of Arkansas, the Arkansas Department of Education
(“ADE”), the Arkansas State Board of Education
(“SBE”), and the Members of the Arkansas State
Board of Education (collectively, “State
Defendants”). (ECF No. 276). Both Plaintiff and
Camden-Fairview have filed replies. (ECF Nos. 283, 284).
I.
BACKGROUND
On
December 16, 1988, Plaintiffs-a group of African-Americans
residing in Ouachita County, Arkansas-filed this action on
behalf of their school-aged children against State
Defendants; the Board of Directors of the Camden Arkansas
Housing Authority; the City of Camden, Arkansas; the Board of
Education of the Camden, Arkansas School District; the
Camden, Arkansas Fairview School District; and the Board of
Education of the Harmony Grove School District.
Plaintiffs' Complaint alleged that Defendants acted in
concert to deny African-American children equal educational
opportunities by establishing, maintaining and perpetuating
racially discriminatory school systems. Among other forms of
relief, Plaintiffs sought an order consolidating the three
defendant school districts or an effective desegregation
plan.
On
October 16, 1990, the Camden School District and Fairview
School District were consolidated. On November 27, 1990, the
Court entered a consent order (hereinafter the
“Milton Order”) which provided, in
pertinent part, that:
C. Harmony Grove shall maintain an open admission policy in
regard to nonresident black students. Harmony Grove shall not
permit the transfer of white students from Fairview into the
district without the written permission of Fairview.
Acceptance of transfer students by Harmony Grove is subject
to existing space and transfer limitations. Harmony Grove
will also refrain from engaging in any other act or conduct
tending directly or indirectly to have a segregative impact
in the Fairview School District. Any student transferring to
Harmony Grove in compliance with this order and other legal
requirements will be immediately eligible for all school
activities without any of the limitations imposed by A.C.A.
§ 6-18-206.
(ECF No. 262-1, p. 2). The Milton Order further
states as follows:
D. The consolidated Camden-Fairview School District and the
Harmony Grove School District . . . are desirous of avoiding
further litigation and controversy. While both of these
districts are separate and autonomous and intend to operate
independently in exercising governmental authority, these two
districts agree that further costly litigation can be avoided
by inter-district agreements. These agreements include but
are not limited to the following:
1. Both school districts shall refrain from adopting student
assignment plans or programs that have an inter-district
segregative effect on either district.
Id. at 3. The Milton Order further states
that this Court “will retain jurisdiction to supervise
all aspects of this and subsequent orders of this Court until
such time as this Court issues a declaration of unitary
status.” Id.
On May
8, 1991, the Court issued an order tentatively approving a
settlement agreement between Plaintiffs, Camden-Fairview, and
the State Defendants. (ECF No. 220). The Court entered a
consent order declaring Camden-Fairview unitary on February
1, 2002 (ECF No. 254); however, the Court left certain
desegregation obligations in place for Camden-Fairview and
Harmony Grove, including paragraph C of the Milton
Order as stated above. (See ECF No. 254, ¶ 3).
The consent order further provided that State Defendants, the
City of Camden, the Housing Authority of Camden, Harmony
Grove School District, and Camden-Fairview had complied with
the obligations imposed by the 1991 settlement agreement and
court orders and dismissed them from the suit with prejudice.
On
December 14, 2009, an action was removed to this Court from
the Circuit Court of Ouachita County, Arkansas, alleging that
a student at Camden-Fairview was denied permission to
transfer to Harmony Grove High School in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the
Arkansas Constitution and Arkansas common law. See
Lancaster v. Guess, No. 1:09-cv-1056. The parties to the
Lancaster action later entered into a settlement
agreement and jointly moved to dismiss, which was granted by
the Court on July 26, 2010 (hereinafter the
“Lancaster Order”). (ECF No. 262-5). The
Lancaster Order states that the Court retains
jurisdiction of the case for the sole purpose of enforcing
the parties' settlement agreement and enforcing its
orders in the present action. The Lancaster Order
also reiterates that paragraph C, as stated above, from the
Milton Order is still in effect.
The
Arkansas Public School Choice Act of 1989 (the “1989
Act”) was in effect at the time the parties executed
the Milton and Lancaster Orders. 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. 262-2, §§
11(a-b)).
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.
262-5, p. 8). 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.
262-9, 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. 262-10, 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, Camden-Fairview annually 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 Camden-Fairview on a public list of
school districts not participating in school choice.
Accordingly, Camden-Fairview did not participate in school
choice at all while the 2013 Act and 2015 Act were in effect.
On
December 27, 2017, Camden-Fairview 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 Camden
Fairview's request for a total exemption, finding only a
“partial conflict” between Camden-Fairview's
desegregation obligations and participation in school choice.
The ADE found that Camden-Fairview had failed to demonstrate
that it was subject to a federal court's active
desegregation order “explicitly limiting the
interdistrict transfer of students” as to all
school districts except Harmony Grove. (ECF No. 262-14,
¶ 3) (emphasis in original). Thus, the ADE concluded
that Camden-Fairview is required to participate in school
choice for the 2018-2019 school year “for all transfers
except those to the Harmony Grove School District.”
(ECF No. 262-14, ¶ 3).
On
January 30, 2018, Camden-Fairview appealed the ADE's
decision to the SBE. The SBE heard Camden Fairview's
appeal on March 8, 2018 and, in a subsequent order dated
March 28, 2018, upheld the ADE's decision that
Camden-Fairview had a partial conflict with participation in
school choice, limited only to transfers from Camden-Fairview
to Harmony Grove, and that Camden-Fairview must participate
in school choice as to all other districts for the 2018-2019
school year. (ECF No. 262-16).
On May
4, 2018, Camden-Fairview filed the instant Motion for
Declaratory Judgment. (ECF No. 262). Camden-Fairview asserts
that it is still subject to the obligations imposed by the
Milton and Lancaster Orders and thus has a
conflict with taking part in school choice pursuant to the
2017 Act. Camden-Fairview seeks, through various alternative
means of relief, a finding that it is prohibited ...