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
2

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;
3

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.