FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT MARCH 28, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H]

I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 10235 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 8 3 - 0 1 6 7 6 - CV- HLM U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , J O H N F . K N I G H T , J R ., A L E A S E S . S I M S , P la in tif f s - A p p e lle e s , G E O R G E M U N C H U S , W IL L IE S T R A IN , o n b eh al f o f th em sel v es a s c la s s m e m b e r s , P la in tif f s - A p p e lla n ts , v ersu s S T A T E O F A L A B A M A , A L A B A M A A & M U N I V E R S I T Y , A L A B A M A S T A T E B O A R D O F E D U C A T I O N , A U B U RN U N I V E R S I T Y , B O A R D O F T R U S T E E S O F T H E U N I V E R S I T Y O F A L A B A M A ,2

A L A B A M A C O M M I S S I O N O N H I G H E R E D U C A T I O N , A L A B A M A P U B L I C S C H O O L A N D C O L L E G E A U T H O R I T Y , B O B R I L E Y , G o v e rn o r , J I M M A I N , D ir e c to ro f F in a n c e , e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D i s tr i c to f A l ab a ma

_________________________ ( M ar c h 28, 2008) B efo re T JO F L A T , A N D E R S O N an d B L A C K , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: T h is ap p e a l a r is e s f

r o m e x te n d e d litig a tio n r e g a r d in g ad e s e g r e g a tio n la w s u it i nv ol vi ng the pu bl i c uni vers i t i es i n A l abam a a nd a pl ai nt i ff cl as s of “ al l bl ac k c i t i z e ns of

A l aba m aa nd a l l pa s t , pr e s e nta nd f utur e s tude nt s , f

a c ul ty , s t a f

f a nd ad m i n i strat o rs o f A l ab am a S t at e U n i v ersi ty an d A l ab am a A & M U n i v ersi ty” ( “ K ni ght - S i m s pl a i nt i f

f s ” ) . M unc hus a nd S tr a i n, pr oc e e di ng pr o s e on be ha l f of the m s e l ve s a s c l a s s m e m be r s , appe a l the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s appr ova l of t e n s e tt l e m e nt a g r e e m e n ts e n d in g th a t litig a tio n . Pr ude nt i a lSt a ndi ng Th e St a t e o f

A l ab a maa n d th e St a t e Bo a r d o f Ed u c a t i o n D e f

e n d a n t s ( “ SBE3

D e f e n d a n ts ” ) a r g u e th a t M u n c h u s a n d S tr a in la c kp ru d e n tia l s ta n d in g u n d e rD e v lin v . S c a r d e le tti, 5 3 6 U .S . 1 , 1 2 2 S .C t. 2 0 0 5 , 1 5 3 L .E d .2 d 2 7 ( 2 0 0 2 ) , b e c au s e th e y f a il t o a s s e r ta ny i ndi vi dua l r i ghta s c l a s s m e m be r s ora ny pe r s ona l s t a ke i n the o u tc o m e o f

th e c la s s a c tio n s e ttle m e n t o rap p e a l. N on -nam ed cl as s m em bers w ho obj ec ti n a t i m el y m anner t o app roval of a s e tt l e m e nti n ac l a s s a c t i on m a y appe a l f r om the f i na l j udgm e ntappr ovi ng the s e tt l e m e nt . D e vl i n, 536 U . S . a t14, 122 S . C t . a t2113; A A L H i gh Y i e l d B ond F und v. D e l oi tt e & T ouc he L L P , 361 F . 3d 1305, 1309 ( 11th C i r . 2004) . “ [ A ] ppe a l s by n o n n a m e d c la s s m e m b e r s [ d o n o t] r a is e th e s o r ts o f c o n c e rn s th a t a r e o r d in a r ily addres se d as am att erof prud ent i al st andi ng . ” D evl i n, 53 6 U . S . at7, 12 2 S . C t . at 2 0 0 9 . A s th e S u p r e m e C o u r t s ta te d in D e v lin : B e c au s e p e titio n e ris am e m b e ro f th e c la s s b o u n d b y th e ju d g m e n t, the r e i s no que s t i on tha the s a t i s f i e s [ the prude nt i a l s t a ndi ng] r e qui r e m e nt s . T he l e ga l r i ght s he s e e ks t o r a i s e a r e hi s ow n, he be l ongs t o adi s c r e t e c l a s s of i nt e r e s t e d pa r t i e s , a nd hi s c om pl a i nt c le a r ly f a lls w ith in th e z o n e o f

in te r e s ts o f

th e r e q u ir e m e n t th a t a se tt l em entbe fa i r t o al l cl as s m em bers . F ed. R ul e C i v. P roc. 23 (e ). I d . M u n c h u s a n d S tr a in a r e n o n n a m e d c la s s m e m b e r s w h o f ile d tim e ly obj ec t i on s t o the se tt l em entagre em ent s. T here fore , they s at i sf y the prud ent i al s ta n d in g r e q u ir e m e n ts .4 A p p rova lof th e S et tl em en t A gree m en ts W e r e vi e w f

orabus e of

di s c r e t i on adi s tr i c tc our t ’ s appr ova l of ac l a s s a c t i on s e tt l e m e nta gr e e m e nt . L e ve r s o v. S outhT rus tB a nk of A l a . , 18 F . 3d 1527, 1531 ( 11th C i r . 1994) . O url i m i t e d r e vi e w r e f l e c t s as tr ong j udi c i a l pol i c y f a vor i ng the r e s ol ut i on of

di s put e s thr ough s e tt l e m e nt . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C i ty of M i a m i , 614 F .2 d 1 3 2 2 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 8 0 ) . W e r e v ie w f o rc le a re rr o rad is tr ic t c o u r t’s f in d in g th a t, unde rU ni t e d S t a t e s v. F or di c e , 505 U . S . 717, 112 S . C t . 2727, 120 L . E d. 2d 575 ( 1 9 9 2 ) , a n e d u c a tio n s y s te m is n o lo n g e rin v io la tio n o f th e C o n s titu tio n a n d is the r e f or e uni t a ry . N A A C P , J a c ks onvi l l e B r a nc h v. D uva l C ounty S c hool , 273 F . 3d 96 0, 96 6 (11 th C i r. 20 01 ).

L eg al an d E co n o m i c In t erest s o f th e C l ass M un chus and S tra i n argue thatthe di stri ctcourtappl i ed an i ncorrec tl egal s ta n d a r d in d e te rm in in g w h e th e rto ap p r o v e th e s e ttle m e n t a g r e e m e n ts , a n d , in doi ng s o, the di s tr i c tc our tf a i l e d t o “ f

a i r l y a nd a de qua t e l y r e pr e s e ntthe l e ga l a nd e c o n o m ic in te r e s ts o f

th e c la s s .” T h e y s p e c if ic a lly a s s e r t th a t th e s e ttle m e n t is unf a i ra nd i na de qua t e i n tw o w a y s : ( 1) f undi ng f orhi s t or i c a l l y bl a c k c ol l e ge s a nd uni ve r s i t i e s i s c ont i nge ntupon l e gi s l a t i ve appr ova l ; a nd ( 2) the c our ti s w i thout j ur i s di c t i on t o e nf

or c e the a gr e e m e nt s . T he y a r gue tha tthe m e di a t i on pr ovi s i ons of th e s e ttle m e n t a g r e e m e n ts “r e q u ir e [ ] th e c la s s to e n g a g e in th e le g a l a n d e c o n o m ic5

bu rden of [enforc i ng ] the se tt l em ent s. ” T he y f ur the ra r gue tha tthe di s tr i c tc our ts houl d ha ve appl i e d the s i x- f a c t or appr oa c h i n A y e r s v. T hom ps on, 358 F . 3d 356 ( 5th C i r . 2002) ( pe r s ua s i ve autho ri ty) . M un chus and S tra i n app ea r t o argue thatno ton l y i s A ye rs the prop er l eg al st an d ard , b u tth atth e su b st an ce o f th e sett l em en tag reem en t s i n th i s case shou l d i ncl ud e c ert ai n k eyprov i si on s of the se tt l em entagre em enti n A ye rs . T hey poi ntt o the f

ol l ow i ng f

e a tur e s of

the A y e r s s e tt l e m e nta gr e e m e nt : ( 1) s t a t e f und appr opr i a t i ons w e r e appr ove d by the s t a t e l e gi s l a tur e pr i ort o appr ova l of the se tt l em ent ; (2) the no t i ce t o cl as s m em bers w as w i del y c i rc ul at ed for s ever al m on ths; (3) the fa i rnes s hea ri ng ext ended o ver three days , du ri ng w hi ch the court re ce i ved evi dence, ra ther than rel i ed up on re po rt s; (4) the obj ec t ors w er e a l l ow ed an op po rtun i ty t o p art i ci pat e i n the fa i rnes s hea ri ng ; (5) the di stri ctcourtre t ai ned j ur i s di c t i on; a nd ( 6) the r e m e di a l s t a nda r d w a s the e l i m i na t i on of ve s t i ge s of se gregat i on , no tthe prom ot i on of di vers i ty. W i th regard t o thi s l as tfe ature, M u n c h u s a n d S tr a in a r g u e th a t “th e c la s s is e n title d to m o r e th a n d iv e r s ity pr ogr a m s a nd m e a s ur e m e nt s f orw hi c h de f

e nda nt s w i l l pa y no pe na l ty f or v io la tio n s o rn o n - a c h ie v e m e n t.” M unc hus a nd S tr a i n a l s o a r gue tha t“ [ t ] he di s tr i c tc our tdi d notgi ve adequat e c on si dera t i on t o w hether thi s s ett l em enti s am ant l e of opp re ss i on that6

u n fai rl y an d u n reaso n ab l y i m p i n g es o n th e ri g h t s an di n t erest s o f th e ab sen tcl ass m em bers . ” T hey c on t end thatthe court -order ed no t i ce t o cl as s m em bers

— on ce a w e e kf o rtw o w e e k s in d e s ig n a te d n e w s p ap e r s in A lab a m a— w a s in s u f f ic ie n t to s a t i s f y the l e ga l a nd e c onom i c i nt e r e s tof abs e ntc l a s s m e m be r s . T he y not e tha tthe tw o w e e k s n o tic e d id n o t p r o v id e ab s e n t c la s s m e m b e r s tim e “to o b ta in ap p r o p r ia te l egal re vi ew ” of the se tt l em entagre em ent s a nd that“ [t ] he fa i rnes s hea ri ng w as s c h e d u le d w ith in o n e w e e ko f th e tim e to f

ile o b je c tio n s .” F ed eral R u l e o f C i v i l P ro ced u re 2 3 (e) req u i res j u d i ci al ap p ro v al o f al l cl ass sett l em en t s. F ed . R . C i v . P . 2 3 (e)(1 )(A ). In th atap p ro v al p ro cess, ab sen tcl ass m e m be r s a r e a f

f or de d both s ubs t a nt i ve a nd pr oc e dur a l pr ot e c t i ons . H ol m e s v. C on t i nent al C an C o. , 70 6 F . 2d 11 44 , 11 47 (11th C i r. 19 83 ). A “ [d] i stri ct[c ] ou rt m ustfi nd thatthe se tt l em enti s f ai r, adequat e a nd re as on abl e a nd i s notthe prod uct of col l usi on betw ee n the part i es . ” C ot t on v. H i nt on , 55 9 F . 2d 13 26 , 13 30 (5th C i r. 1 9 7 7 ) ; s e e a ls o F e d .R .C iv .P . 2 3 ( e ) ( 1 ) ( C ) . I n e v a lu a tin g s e ttle m e n t p r o p o s a ls , s ix f a c t or s a r e ge ne r a l l y c ons i de r e d: ( 1) w he the rthe s e tt l e m e ntw a s apr oduc tof f r aud orc ol l us i on; ( 2) the c om pl e xi ty , e xpe ns e , a nd l i ke l y dur a t i on of the l i t i ga t i on; ( 3) the st age of the proceedi ng s a nd the am ou ntof di sc ov ery c om pl et ed; (4) the fa ctual a nd l e ga l obs t a c l e s pr e va i l i ng on the m e r i t s ; ( 5) the pos s i bl e r a nge of r e c ove ry a nd th e cert ai n ty o f d am ag es; an d (6 ) th e resp ect i v e o p i n i o n s o f th e p art i ci p an t s,7

i ncl ud i ng cl as s c ou nsel , cl as s r epre se nt at i ve, and the abse ntcl as s m em bers . S ee C o tto n , 5 5 9 F .2 d a t 1 3 3 0 - 3 1 . A c c o r d A y e r s v . T h o m p s o n , 3 5 8 F .3 d 3 5 6 , 3 6 9 ( 5 th C i r . 2004) . A ddi t i ona l l y , “ i ndi vi dua l c l a s s m e m be r s w hos e i nt e r e s t s m a y be com prom i se d i n the se tt l em entproces s” ar e a cc orded speci al procedural pr ot e c t i ons , i nc l udi ng not i c e . H ol m e s , 706 F . 2d a t1147; P e ttw a y v. A m . C a s tI r on P ip e C o ., 5 7 6 F .2 d 1 1 5 7 , 1 2 1 9 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 7 8 ) . N ot i ce A s ath r e s h o ld m a tte r , th e r e is a n is s u e a s to w h e th e rM u n c h u s a n d S tr a in f a i l e d t o pr e s e rve the i s s ue of not i c e by nots ubm i tt i ng aw r i tt e n obj e c t i on t o the di s tr i c tc our t . S e e A c c e s s N ow , I nc . v. S outhw e s tA i r l i ne s C o. , 385 F . 3d 1324, 1331 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( hol di ng tha t , ge ne r a l l y , w e w i l l notc ons i de ra n i s s ue not ra i se d i n the di stri ctcourt . ). In thei r bri ef , M un chus and S tra i n fra m e the no t i ce is s u e a s o n e r e g a r d in g th e le g a l a n d e c o n o m ic in te r e s ts o f th e c la s s . T h e ir obj e c t i ons be l ow do a s s e r ttha t“ [ t ] he pr opos e d s e tt l e m e nta gr e e m e ntdoe s not f a i r l y a nd a de qua t e l y r e pr e s e ntthe l e ga l a nd e c onom i c i nt e r e s t s of the m e m be r s of the cl as s. ” C on strui ng the obj ec t i on s a nd bri ef of M un chus and S tra i n, w ho ar e proceedi ng pro se, l i bera l l y, M un chus and S tra i n app ea r t o u nd er st and the no t i ce r e q u ir e m e n t a s p a r t o f

th is b r o a d e ro b

je c tio n r e g a r d in g th e in te r e s ts o f th e c la s s . S e e L o r i s m e v . I . N. S . , 1 2 9 F . 3 d 1 4 4 1 , 1 4 4 4 n . 3 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1 9 9 7 ) ( n o t i n g th a twe8

lib e r a lly c o n s tru e p r o s e b r ie f s ) . T he r e f

or e , the y ha ve notf

a i l e d t o pr e s e rve the is s u e f o rap p e a l. R e g a r d le s s , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in f in d in g th a t n o tic e w a s s u f f ic ie n t, a s d is c u s s e d b e lo w . R u le 2 3 ( e ) r e q u ir e s th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t “d ir e c t n o tic e in ar e a s o n ab le m anner t o al l cl as s m em bers w ho w ou l d b e bou nd by a propo se d sett l em ent . ” F e d .R .C iv .P . 2 3 ( e ) ( 1 ) ( B ) . W e h a v e n o t d e te rm in e d w h a t c o n s titu te s r e a s o n ab le no t i ce of a propo se d sett l em entagre em entun der R ul e 23(e). T ho se of ou r s i st er ci rcu i t s th ath av e ad d ressed th e i ssu e h av e req u i red th atth e n o t i ce ap p ri se cl ass m em b ers o f th e t erm s o f th e sett l em en tag reem en ti n a m an n er th atal l o w s cl ass m em bers t o m ake thei r ow n d et erm i nat i on re gardi ng w hether the se tt l em entse rves the i ri nt e r e s t s . S e e I nt ’ l U ni on, U ni t e d A ut o. , A e r os pa c e , a nd A gr i c . I m pl e m e nt W orke r s of

A m . v. G e n. M ot or s C orp. , 497 F . 3d 617, 630 ( 6th C i r . 2007) ( pe r s ua s i ve author i ty ) ( e xpl a i ni ng tha tnot i c e m us t“ f a i r l y appr i s e the pr os pe c t i ve m em bers of the cl as s of the t erm s of the prop osed se tt l em entso thatcl as s m em bers m a y c o m e to th e iro w n c o n c lu s io n s ab o u t w h e th e rth e s e ttle m e n t s e rv e s th e ir i nt er es t s. ”) (i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed).

“ In ad d i t i o n t o th e req u i rem en t s o f R u l e 2 3 , th e C o n st i tu t i o n ' s D u e P ro cess C lau s e a ls o g u a r a n te e s u n n a m e d c la s s m e m b e r s th e r ig h t to n o tic e o f . . . s e tt l e m e nt . ” D e J ul i us v. N e w E ngl a nd H e a l th C a r e E m pl oy e e s P e ns i on F und, 4299

F . 3d 935, 943- 44 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( pe r s ua s i ve author i ty ) . A c c or d A da m s v. S o u th ern F arm B u reau L i fe In s. C o . , 4 9 3 F . 3 d 1 2 7 6 , 1 2 8 5 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) (“ C l ass ac t i on s, as other c as es , ar e s ubj ec tt o the re qu i re m ent s of due process . ”) (i nt ernal q u o t at i o n m ark s o m i tt ed ). In th e co n t ex to f n o t i ce fo r cl ass cert i fi cat i o n an d cl ass m em ber opt -out , w e have s t at ed that“ i ti s noton l y nec es sa rythatthe no t i ce re ac h the pa r t i e s a f

f e c t e d buttha ti tc onve y the r e qui r e d i nf orm a t i on. ” A da m s , 493 F . 3d at 1 2 8 5 -8 6 (in tern al q u o tati o n m ar k s o m itted ). L ik ew ise, w e h av e s tated th at, “ [i]n r e vi e w i ng the c l a s s not i c e t o de t e rm i ne w he the ri ts a t i s f i e s the [ ] r e qui r e m e nt s [ of d u e p r o c e s s ], w e lo o ks o le ly to th e la n g u a g e o f th e n o tic e s a n d th e m a n n e ro f th e ir di s tr i but i on. ” I d. a t1286. T he di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n fi nd i ng thatno t i ce w as s uf f i c i e nt . T he c ont e ntof

the not i c e appr i s e d the c l a s s m e m be r s tha tthe s e tt l e m e nt a gr e e m e ntw i th the S t a t e w a s a va i l abl e f orthe i rr e vi e w on the w e bs i t e s of the S t at es of A l abam a, the G ov erno r, and the A l abam a C om m i ss i on on H i gh er E duc a t i on a nd tha tthe s e tt l e m e nta gr e e m e ntw i th e a c h of the de f e nda nt u n i v ersi t i es w as av ai l ab l e o n th e u n i v ersi ty’ s w eb si t e. Ital so ap p ri sed th e cl ass m e m b e r s th a t th e y c o u ld v ie w th e s e ttle m e n t a g r e e m e n ts o n th e p la in tif f’s w e b s ite and atthe m ai n l i brary of e veryst at e uni vers i ty i n A l abam a. T he no t i ce appeare d in n e w s p ap e r s in th e g e o g r ap h ic a r e a s o f th e u n iv e r s itie s in v o lv e d in th e s u it a n d in10

the no rth, south, ea stand w es tof the st at e. T he no t i ce w as pu bl i shed i n t en ne w s pape r s , tw i c e i n e a c h, a tw e e k i nt e rva l s . R e ga r di ng the a m ountof t i m e the not i c e w a s publ i s he d pr i ort o the de a dl i ne f orobj e c t i ons a nd the f

a i rne s s he a r i ng, the di stri ctcourtdi d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n p rovi di ng for tw o w ee ks’ no t i ce b efo re o b

j ect i o n s w ere d u e. A l th o u g h M u n ch u s an d S trai n arg u e th attw o w eek s’ not i c e di d nota l l ow c l a s s m e m be r s a de qua t e t i m e t o s e c ur e c ouns e l f orf i l i ng obj ec t i on s, R ul e 23 and du e proces s onl y r equi re thatcl as s m em bers ar e provi ded not i c e of the t e rm s of

as e tt l e m e nta gr e e m e nti n am a nne rtha ta l l ow s the m t o m a ke ade t e rm i na t i on aboutw he the rornotthe s e tt l e m e nts e rve s the i ri nt e r e s t s . N othi ng in R u le 2 3 ( e ) o rits a tte n d a n t ju r is p ru d e n c e in d ic a te s th a t h ir in g c o u n s e l is n ecessary to m eetth e req u i rem en t s o f R u l e 2 3 (e) o r d u e p ro cess. Fa irn e s s , A de q u a c

y, a n d R e a s o n a b le n e s s o

f th e Se ttle m e n t A g r e e m e n ts I n appr ovi ng as e tt l e m e nt , the tr i a l c our tm us t“ unde r t a ke a n a na l y s i s of the fact s an d th e l aw rel ev an tt o th e p ro p o sed co m p ro m i se” an d “ su p p o rt[i t s] c onc l us i ons by m e m or a ndum opi ni on orothe rw i s e i n the r e c or d. ” C ott on, 559 F . 2d a t1330. “ A m e r e boi l e r - pl a t e appr ova l phr a s e d i n appr opr i a t e l a ngua ge but uns uppor t e d by e va l ua t i on of the f a c t s ora na l y s i s of

the l a w w i l l nots uf

f i c e . ” I d. (i n t ern al q u o t at i o n m ark s o m i tt ed ). W e “ m u sth av e a b asi s fo r j u d g i n g th e ex erci se of the di s tr i c tj udge ’ s di s c r e t i on. ” H ol m e s , 706 F . 2d a t1147 ( quot i ng C ott on, 55911

F . 2d a t1330) ( r e ve r s i ng a nd r e m a ndi ng w he r e the di s tr i c tc our tappr ove d a s e ttle m e n t b a s e d u p o n ad e f ic ie n t r e c o r d ) . H o w e v e r , a s th e f o rm e rF if

th C ir c u it expl ai ned, “ [d] i ff

er entprob l em s a re po se d b y c l as s a ct i on se tt l em ent s [ than d i stri ct courtj ud gm ent s] . L ac ki ng a f ul l y devel op ed evi dent i ary r ec ord, bo th the tri al c our ta nd the appe l l a t e c our tw oul d be i nc apabl e of m a ki ng the i nde pe nde nt assessm en to f th e fact s an d l aw req u i red i n th e ad j u d i cat o ry co n t ex t . ” P ettw ay, 5 7 6 F .2 d a t 1 1 6 9 . W e e x p la in e d in C o tto n th a t: [ i ] n de t e rm i ni ng the f

a i rne s s , a de qua c y a nd r e a s onabl e ne s s of the pr opos e d c om pr om i s e , the i nqui rys houl d f oc us upon the t e rm s of

the s e ttle m e n t. T h e s e ttle m e n t te rm s s h o u ld b e c o m p a r e d w ith th e lik e ly r e w a r ds the c l a s s w oul d ha ve r e c e i ve d f ol l ow i ng as uc c e s s f

ul tr i a l of the c a s e . . . Y e t , i n e va l ua t i ng the t e rm s of the c om pr om i s e i n r e l a t i on t o the l i kel y benef

i t s of asucc es sf

ul tri al , the tri al j ud ge ou gh tno ttry th e case i n th e sett l em en th eari n g s. C ot t on , 55 9 F . 2d at13 30 . T here fore , “ [i ] tca nn otbe ov er em ph as i ze d thatnei ther the tri al courti n app rovi ng the se tt l em entno r thi s C ou rti n revi ew i ng thatapprov al have the ri gh tor the du ty t o rea ch any ul t i m at e c on cl usi on s on the i ss ues of f ac t a n d la w w h ic h u n d e r lie th e m e r its o f th e d is p u te .” I d . In eval uat i ng w hether the se tt l em entagre em ent s i n thi s c as e w er e “ fa i r, adequat e, and reas on abl e, ” the di stri ctcourtconsi dere d n i ne fa ct ors, w hi ch in c lu d e d th e s ix f

a c to r s e n u m e r a te d in th e s ta n d a r d a s s e r te d b y M u n c h u s a n d S tr a in and g ener al l y c on si dere d i n eval uat i ng se tt l em entprop osal s. T here fore , the di stri ct12

c o u r t d id n o t ap p ly a n in c o rr e c t le g a l s ta n d a r d , n o rd id it ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in f in d in g th a t th e s e ttle m e n t a g r e e m e n ts w e r e f a ir , a d e q u a te , a n d r e a s o n ab le . F or di c e : T he V e s t i ge s of D e J ur e S e gr e ga t i on M u n c h u s a n d S tr a in a r g u e o n ap p e a l th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e d its di sc re t i on i n fi nd i ng thatthe vest i ges of de j ure s egre gat i on had b ee n rem ov ed f r o m th e A lab a m au n iv e r s ity s y s te m to th e e x te n t p r a c tic ab le a n d c o n s is te n t w ith s o u n d e d u c a tio n a l p r a c tic e s . T h e y a s s e r t th a t th e tr a d itio n a lly w h ite u n iv e r s itie s in A l abam a have notm etthe st andards s etforth b y the S up re m e C ou rti n U ni t ed S t at es v. F ordi ce . T hey f urther a ss ertthatthe di stri ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on that A l aba m a ’ s uni ve r s i ty s y s t e m ha d a tt a i ne d uni t a ry s t a tus w a s uns uppor t e d by the evi dence atthe fa i rnes s hea ri ng and thatthe re cord di d n otshow thatthe vest i ges of r a c i a l s e gr e ga t i on ha d be e n e l i m i na t e d. T he y c ont e nd tha tthe r e m a i ni ng vest i ges of de j ure s egre gat i on ca nn otbe re m edi ed throu gh di vers i ty program s, as ou t l i ned i n the se tt l em entagre em ent s. M un chus and S tra i n further c on t end that i m m easu rab l e “ d i v ersi ty” i s an erro n eo u s l eg al st an d ard i n d eseg reg at i o n cases, a n d th e r e f

o r e , b y ap p ly in g ad iv e r s ity s ta n d a r d , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t ab u s e d its di s c r e t i on. T he y not e tha t“ [ a ] l l a gr e e d tha tthe ve s t i ge s of r a c i a l s e gr e ga t i on co n ti n u e” an d th at, ev en w ith m o n it o rin g an d co u rt o v er sig h t, A lab am a’s u n iv e r s ity s y s te m f

a ile d to c o m p ly w ith th e c o n s e n t d e c r e e .13

“A S ta te d o e s n o t d is c h a r g e its c o n s titu tio n a l o b lig a tio n s [ to d is m a n tle its p r io rd u a l u n iv e r s ity s y s te m ] u n til it e r a d ic a te s p o lic ie s a n d p r a c tic e s tr a c e ab le to i t s p r i o rd e j u r e d u a l s y s t e m th a tc o n t i n u e t o f o s t e rs e g r e g a t i o n . ” Fo r d i c e , 5 0 5 U . S. a t 7 2 8 , 1 1 2 S .C t. a t 2 7 3 5 . “I f p o lic ie s tr a c e ab le to th e d e ju r e s y s te m a r e s till in f or c e a nd ha ve di s c r i m i na t ory e f f e c t s , thos e pol i c i e s t oo m us tbe r e f orm e d t o the e xt e ntpr a c t i c abl e a nd c ons i s t e ntw i th s ound e duc a t i ona l pr a c t i c e s . ” I d. a t729, 112 S .C t. a t 2 7 3 6 . A di stri ctcourt“ shou l d ret ai n j uri sdi ct i on un t i l i ti s c l ea r thatst at e- i m po se d se gregat i on has bee n com pl et el y r em ov ed. ” G re en v. C ou nty S ch. B d. O f N ew K e n t C o u n ty , V a ., 3 9 1 U .S . 4 3 0 , 4 3 9 , 8 8 S .C t. 1 6 8 9 , 1 6 9 5 ( 1 9 6 8 ) . H o w e v e r , T he S upr e m e C our ti nt e nde d [ the ] f e de r a l s upe rvi s i on of

l oc a l s c hool s y s t e m s t o be at e m por a ry m e a s ur e . S i nc e the l e ga l j us t i f i c a t i on f or s u c h s u p e rv is io n is ac o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n b y lo c a l au th o r itie s , a di stri ctcourtm ustdi vesti t se l f of j uri sdi ct i on w hen the const i tut i on al v io la tio n h a s c e a s e d a n d w h e n lo c a l au th o r itie s h a v e o p e r a te d in c om pl i a nc e w i th ade s e gr e ga t i on de c r e e f orar e a s onabl e pe r i od of tim e . L oc ke ttv. B d. of

E duc . of M us c oge e C ounty S c h. D i s t . , G a . , 11 F . 3d 839, 842 ( 11th C i r . 1997) ( c i t i ng B oa r d of E duc . of O kl a hom aC i ty v. D ow e l l , 498 U . S . 237, 247, 111 S . C t . 630, 637, 112 L . E d. 2d 715 ( 1991) ) . “ T o be e nt i t l e d t o the e nd of fe dera l courtsupervi si on , a f orm er l y dual sc ho ol sy st em m ustbe abl e t o p rove that i thas ( 1) com pl i ed i n g oo d fai th w i th the dese gregat i on decr ee , and (2) el i m i nat ed14

th e v e s t i g e s o f

p r i o rd e j u r e s e g r e g a t i o n t o th e e x t e n tp r a c t i c ab l e . ” N A A CP, J a c ks onvi l l e B r a nc h v. D uva l C ounty S c hool , 273 F . 3d 960, 966 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( c i t i ng M i s s our i v. J e nki ns , 515 U . S . 70, 88, 115 S . C t . 2038, 132 L . E d. 2d 63 (199 5)). W e ha ve “ s tr e s s [ e d] the t e m por a ry na tur e of f e de r a l j udi c i a l s upe rvi s i on ove rl oc a l s c hool s y s t e m s . ” L e e v. T a l l a de gaC ounty B d. of E duc . , 963 F . 2d 1426, 1 4 3 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 2 ) . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t n o te d in F r e e m a n th a t: R etu rn i n g sch o o l s t o th e co n tro l o f l o cal au th o ri t i es atth e earl i est pr a c t i c abl e da t e i s e s s e nt i a l t o r e s t or e the i rtrue a c c ount abi l i ty i n our go vernm ent al sy st em . W hen the sc ho ol di stri ctand al l st at e e nt i t i es pa r t i c i pa t i ng w i th i ti n ope r a t i ng the s c hool s m a ke de c i s i ons i n the abs e nc e of

j udi c i a l s upe rvi s i on, the y c a n be he l d a c c ount abl e t o the ci t i ze nry, t o the po l i t i ca l proces s, and t o the court s i n the ordi nary course . Id. “ [T ] he ‘ end p urpo se ’ of every c ou rtthatsupervi se s the di se st abl i shm entof a r a c ia lly d u a l s c h o o l s y s te m m u s t b e to r e m e d y th e [ c o n s titu tio n a l] v io la tio n a n d in addi t i on t o res t ore s t at e a nd l ocal autho ri t i es t o the control of a s choo l sy st em that i s ope r a t i ng i n c om pl i a nc e w i th the C ons t i tut i on. ” I d. ( i nt e rna l quot a t i on m a rks om i tt ed). T o the ext entthatM un chus and S tra i n argue thatthe di stri ctcourtappl i ed the i ncorrec tl egal st andard un der F ordi ce , the di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr. Iti dent i fi ed a nd appl i e d the s t a nda r d unde rF or di c e . T o the e xt e ntM unc hus a nd S tr a i n a r gueAppellants’ request for oral a rgument is denied. 1 15 tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n f i ndi ng tha tthe ve s t i ge s of s e gr e ga t i on ha d be e n e l i m i na t e d t o the e xt e ntpr a c t i c abl e a nd c ons i s t e ntw i th s ound educat i on al prac t i ce s, the di stri ctcourtdi d n otcl ea rl y e rr . T he di stri ctcourtw as w i th i n i t s d i scret i o n t o d et erm i n e, b ased u p o n th e ev i d en ce d o cu m en t ed i n p ro g ress r e por t s a nd pr i oropi ni ons , tha ti tha d e xhaus t e d i t s r ol e a nd e f f i c a c y i n c ont i nui ng t o d es egre gat e A l abam a’ s hi gh ereducat i on sy st em . T he di stri ctcourthad a rec ord c ons i s t i ng of

r e por t s of

as pe c i a l m a s t e r , a n ove r s i ghtc om m i tt e e , a nd the d e f e n d a n ts th a t s p a n n e d th e lif e o f th e c o n s e n t d e c r e e s , u p o n w h ic h to b a s e its f i ndi ng. A ddi t i ona l l y , the s e tt l e m e nta gr e e m e ntbe tw e e n the c l a s s pl a i nt i f f s a nd A l aba m apr ovi de s i nc r e a s e d a c a de m i c gr a ntf undi ng, c ont i nue d f

undi ng f or pr ogr a m s r e qui r e d by the r e m e di a l de c r e e s , a nd c api t a l f undi ng, a nd i tpr ovi de s f or c our te nf or c e m e ntof

the a gr e e m e nt . T o the e xt e nttha tM unc hus a nd S tr a i n a r gue tha tdi ve r s i ty i s i m m e a s ur abl e — ortha tde s e gr e ga t i on i s i m m e a s ur abl e thr ough the i m p l em en t at i o n o f d i v ersi ty i n i t i at i v es— th e reco rd o f d eseg reg at i o n i n th i s case d e m o n s tr a te s o th e rw is e . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e a f

f i rm. AF F I RME D. 1