Appeals panel affirms tossing of school suit
Associated Press
A lower court was correct to toss a lawsuit filed by parents who claimed the Blytheville School District improperly opted out of an act that allowed them to send their children to neighboring districts, an 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel said Monday.
All three judges agreed that the parents’ request for injunctive relief was moot because the Arkansas legislature passed an amendment to the School Choice Act this year that strikes part of the language in question.
The majorityblack Blytheville district was one of about two dozen that claimed an exemption to the 2013 Arkansas School Choice Act because of what it said was an ongoing desegregation order. In turn, five sets of white parents filed the lawsuit, arguing that the school district had improperly opted out of the act because the previous desegregation order was closed by the district court in 1978. A nowdefunct federal agency had protested that closure.
The 2015 amendments change the language to require a district that is un der a desegregation order or desegregationrelated order to provide court documentation of that order when asking for an exemption.
In the 21 decision, the judges split on whether the parents had proved their constitutional challenge.
Attorney Jay Bequette, who represents the school district, said, “We are very pleased that the 8th Circuit affirmed the decision to dismiss the lawsuit.”
The attorney for the parents who sued, Jess Askew, said they are considering “all options, including asking the full court to hear the exceptionally important issues in the case.”
Two of the judges upheld the lower court’s assertion that the decision did not prevent the parents from exercising their 14th Amendment right to educational choice because they could have sent their children to a private school or charter school or homeschooled them, and that the 14th Amendment does not guarantee a choice within the public school system.
The two also wrote that the district “at least had a rational basis for believing” that it was exempt because of the previous desegregation issues, although they declined to rule on whether the district was subject to a desegregation order.
The third judge, C. Arlen Beam, agreed that the law change made part of the question moot, but dissented on the constitutional issues that would have determined damages. The parents proved both procedural due process and equal protection claims, he said, adding that he would send the case back to district court to determine the issues surrounding liability and monetary damages.