United States v. City of Monroe

513 F. Supp. 375, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16594
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Louisiana
DecidedMay 19, 1980
DocketCiv. A. 11297, 12171
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 513 F. Supp. 375 (United States v. City of Monroe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. City of Monroe, 513 F. Supp. 375, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16594 (W.D. La. 1980).

Opinion

OPINION

STAGG, District Judge.

These consolidated school desegregation suits are currently before the court on the Government’s motion for further relief, seeking intradistrict and interdistrict remedies and on defendant intervenors’ motion to be relieved from the current desegregation plan operating in the Monroe City School System. In 1979, the student population of the City system was 72.7 per cent black, and student population of the Parish system was 77.5 per cent white. 1 At trial, Monroe City conceded, and this court finds that further intradistrict relief is required in the Monroe City system. Accordingly, the motion of defendant-intervenors Lloyd Gill, et a!., is GRANTED. After a three-day trial on the merits and several months to consider the post-trial briefs and voluminous exhibits filed in this matter, this court must conclude that the Government has proven the existence of a limited constitutional violation producing a significant segregative effect in another district. Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 94 S.Ct. 3112, 41 L.Ed.2d 1069 (1974).

The scope of the remedy is determined by the nature and extent of the constitutional violation. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971). The limited violation found by this court is the geographic overlap of two traditionally dual school systems. This overlap perpetuates vestiges of the segregated system and must be dissolved. 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 Board of Education, 407 U.S. 484, 92 S.Ct. 2214, 33 L.Ed.2d 75 (1972). Accordingly, the overlapping student attendance zones of the two systems must be abolished. However, the Government’s allegation that the two systems were not separate and independent was totally refuted at trial. Consequently, the interdistrict remedy of consolidation would exceed the scope of the proven constitutional violation, and is DENIED.

In Louisiana, two school systems serving one parish is anomolous and anachronistic; however, they are a political reality that a recent Supreme Court authority allows to stand. See Milliken v. Bradley, supra. A decision to alter the function of these two political entities must be effectuated by a legislative decision, not a judicial one.

II.

Ouachita Parish is located in Northeast Louisiana. The majority of the parish’s population is centered in the Monroe-West Monroe urban area. The parish is divided into four quadrants by natural boundaries: the Ouachita River runs north-south, dividing the parish into east-west sections; Interstate Highway 20 runs east-west, dividing the parish into north-south sections. 2

The City of Monroe is located in the approximate geographic center of the parish with the Ouachita River serving as the western boundary of the city. The river separates the City of Monroe from the City of West Monroe. 3 The Monroe City School System (hereinafter referred to as “MCSS”) operates its own schools within Ouachita Parish, Louisiana. The Ouachita Parish School System (hereinafter referred to as “OPSS”) serves the entire parish, including the City of Monroe. Consequently, a student residing within the Monroe city limits is physically located in two school systems and their respective attendance zones. 4 Before discussing the merits of the case, a *378 brief review of the separate histories of these consolidated desegregation suits will be helpful.

A.

On August 5, 1965, Jimmy Andrews and Tommy Ray Robertson, minor children enrolled in the MCSS, sued through their mothers, Ms. Etta Mae Andrews and Ms. Odell Willis, alleging racial segregation and discrimination in the operation of the Monroe City public schools. Jimmy Andrews v. City of Monroe, Civil Action No. 11,297. The named plaintiffs sought to represent a class composed of all black parents and students domiciled in the City of Monroe. This litigation has had a protracted history which mirrors the major decisions of the Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in school desegregation law.

On September 17, 1965, this court (Dawkins, J.) signed a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from “continuing to operate a compulsory bi-racial school system.” After further district and appellate court action, the court entered a decree containing the “freeze order” which became a focal part of this litigation. 5 Later, shortly after signing another decree on February 11, 1970, the court allowed the United States to appear as amicus curiae “with the right to submit pleadings, evidence, arguments and briefs, the right to move for injunctive and other necessary and proper relief, and the right to initiate such further proceedings that may be necessary and appropriate.”

On February 24, 1970, the case came on for hearing on defendant School Board’s motion for supplemental relief. This court entered a written decree vacating its previous order of February 11, 1970, and adopting the plan previously submitted by the School Board. 6 This neighborhood plan was overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, as it failed to establish a unitary system. On August 5, 1970, this court entered a decree in accordance with the Fifth Circuit mandate. This decree was later affirmed by the Fifth Circuit.

After further litigation and an appeal, a consent decree was approved on July 30, 1971. 7 This decree allowed a neighborhood school plan and established a Bi-racial Committee. Subsequent activity in this case included an adjudication on June 13, 1973, that defendant School Board was in contempt for failure to adhere to the 1971 consent decree. However, finding mitigating circumstances and that “the Board is not wilfully and deliberately attempting to evade the orders of this court .. . nor wilfully attempting to perpetuate a dual school system in the City of Monroe,” this court (Putnam, J.) refused to order sanctions.

On July 27, 1973, the defendant School Board moved for further relief under the July 30, 1971 consent decree. After a hearing, a consent judgment was entered on August 16, 1973. 8 This decree established attendance zones for all schools and grades within the City system. To desegregate the junior high and high schools, the decree implemented a curious change rule that turned students in certain zones into “Mexican jumping beans”.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
513 F. Supp. 375, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-city-of-monroe-lawd-1980.