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 opportu nity to2

discharge its burden of demonstrating t hat its newly created

district will not adversely impact the de segregation plan now in

place in the Rapides School District. Specifically, the district

c ourt will postpone any further action on the appropriateness of

implementation of the newl y created district until a board of

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

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

hearings to allow the state and new board the opportunity to

demonstrate that implem e ntation 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 procedur es,

meth ods, 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,

i ncluding 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

administr ation; and any other areas of public school

operations or support which the district c ourt may

specify as pe rtinent to the accomplishment of its

underlying desegregation order. S ee Singleton v. Jackson

Mun. Separate Sch. Dist. , 419 F.2d 1211, 1217-1219 (5th

Cir. 1970). E ven after thi s 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 perm itting

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 instructio n. The

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

intends to proceed with electing a board of trustees.

VACATED and REMANDED.