Virgie Lee Valley v. Rapides Prsh Sch Bd

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-30323

VIRGIE LEE VALLEY, et al.
Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee

versus

RAPIDES PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, a corporation
Defendant-Appellee

RICHARD P. IEYOUB, Attorney General
of the State of Louisiana
Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana

April 22, 1999

Before KING, Chief Judge, and WISDOM, POLITZ, JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM,
DAVIS, JONES, SMITH, DUHÉ, WIENER, BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA,
DeMOSS, BENAVIDES, STEWART, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

WISDOM, Circuit Judge:

We are persuaded that this case should be remanded to the

United States district court with instruction to grant promptly the

request of the State of Louisiana for full opportunity to defend

its creation of a new school district. On remand the district

court will allow the State of Louisiana the opportunity to
discharge its burden of demonstrating that its newly created

district will not adversely impact the desegregation plan now in

place in the Rapides School District. Specifically, the district

court will postpone any further action on the appropriateness of

implementation of the newly created district until a board of

trustees has been selected in accordance with state law. Once such

board is in place, the district court shall conduct one or more

hearings to allow the state and new board the opportunity to

demonstrate that implementation and operation of the proposed

district will not adversely impact the plan of desegregation under

which the district now operates.

First, the state and the new board of trustees must at the

outset prove the availability of procedures, methods, and

agreements that if put in place will avoid any adverse impact upon

the present federal plan of desegregation of creating the district

and that they will support implementation of those procedures,

methods, and agreements. Second, after this proof of available

methods, procedures, and agreements, and statement of support, the

state may proceed with organizing the newly created district only

as the state and the organizing district carry their burden of

proving at each appropriate step along the way

how [the new district] plans to work with [the present
district] regarding interdistrict pupil assignments,
including transportation; curriculum composition and
control; teacher employment, discharge, assignment and
transfer; financing and taxation; school building
construction, utilization and closing procedures; special
district-wide efforts such as the magnet school program;

2
 administration; and any other areas of public school
operations or support which the district court may
specify as pertinent to the accomplishment of its
underlying desegregation order. See Singleton v. Jackson
Mun. Separate Sch. Dist., 419 F.2d 1211, 1217-1219 (5th
Cir. 1970). Even after this definitive statement has
been made, the burden remains on [the newly created
district] to establish that its implementation and
operation will meet the tests outlined for permitting
newly created districts to come into being for parts of
districts already under an ongoing court desegregation
order (emphasis added).

Ross v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 559 F.2d 937, 944-45 (5th Cir.
1977).

The district court's orders declaring the statute

unconstitutional are vacated and remanded with instruction. The

state will advise the district court if, aware of this order, it

intends to proceed with electing a board of trustees.

VACATED and REMANDED.

3