Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/62287838/201/State-See-id-Because-the-1961-Private-Act-is-clear-and
Timestamp: 2015-08-01 02:34:46
Document Index: 143624119

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 49', '§ 1', '§ 1983', '§ 1331', '§ 1331', '§ 1983', '§ 1343', '§ 49', '§ 1983', '§ 49', '§ 49', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 24', '§ 1', '§ 49', '§ 49', '§ 49', '§ 49', '§ 49', '§ 49', '§ 49', '§ 49', '§ 49']

State. See id. Because the 1961 Private Act is clear and for Microsoft Word - FINAL Order Deciding Case - FINAL
Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out moreDownloadStandard viewFull view of .Add to collectionMark as finishedMarked as finished. UndoRemove from libraryLook up keyword or sectionLike thisShare on social networks1Activity×Share to your social networks.TweetEmbedTable Of Contents(“Shelby County Board of Education”) filed a complaint for aDefendant City of Memphis filed an answer and counterclaims on2011. (ECF No. 50.) Defendant Memphis City Board of Education(the “Memphis City Board of Education” or the “Board ofThe public school system in Memphis (the “Memphis City Schools”)According to its financial report for the fiscal year endingBoard of Commissioners of the City of Memphis.” 1961 TennPriv. Acts Chapter 375. The Act provides that all laws inWhen the Memphis City Board of Education adopted itsTHAT THE SHELBY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION UNANIMOUSLY OPPOSSES[sic] THE TRANSFER OF THE MEMPHIS CITY SCHOOL SYSTEM TO THESHELBY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION.” (Id. at 17.)ECF No. 22-4; Preliminary Injunction Hr’g Ex. 3.) The letterTennessee Code Annotated § 49-5-203(d) provides that:The signed and dated bill was delivered to the Senate EngrossingEducation although they represent approximately 74% of ShelbyCounty Board of Education. (See Preliminary Injunction Hr’g ExCounty Commission could not implement its plan to create twenty-20Official%20GEMS%20ELECTION%20SUMMARY%20REPORT.pdf. The Shelby2011. See idBoard of Education has impaired the Shelby County Board ofShelby County Board of Education to comply with Tennessee lawShelby County Board of Education; or (3) declaring that theMemphis City Board of Education’s effort to abandon its charterShelby County Board of Education of responsibilities for theMemphis City Schools. (See id.) The Shelby County Board ofCity of Memphis alleges that the Shelby County Board ofCity of Memphis alleges that Public Chapter 1 violates ArticleSection 8 of the Tennessee Constitution, and the EqualEducation under the Tennessee Constitution to provide for theCounty Board of Education to fulfill its legal obligationsShelby County Board of Education and a cross-claim against theTennessee Department of Education. (ECF No. 50.) The MemphisCity Council alleges that the Shelby County Board of EducationCouncil also alleges that the Tennessee Department of EducationCounty Board of Education to defer presenting information to theTennessee Department of Education with the intent to delay theShelby County Board of Education’s assumption of its duty toThe Memphis City Council requests a declaration that any and all(See id. at 9.) The Memphis City Council also requests aCity Board of Education requests the Court to determine theEducation alleges that sub-subsection (b)(3) of Public Chapter 1(“section (b)(3)” or “(b)(3)”) is unconstitutional under theTennessee Constitution. (See id. at 18-20.) It also allegesEducation about property owned by Memphis City Schools. (SeeMemphis City Schools’ charter or transfer of authority forCounty Commission seeks a declaratory judgment that PublicChapter 1 violates Article XI, Section 8 of the TennesseeShelby County Commission alleges that Public Chapter 1 isUnited States Constitution. (See id. at 32-33.) In its sixthSection 24 of the Tennessee Constitution. (See id. at 34.) InConstitution and Tennessee Code Annotated § 1-3-101. (See idEducation and appointing any new members to the Shelby County(citations omitted). “The Act only provides courts withCircuit has explained that a complaint arises under federal lawShelby County Board of Education alleges that the Memphis CityMemphis have violated the rights of schoolchildren in the CityFourteenth Amendment by surrendering the Memphis City Schools’County Board of Education also alleges that the 1961 PrivateUnited States Constitution by abridging the children’s right to42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.” (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1331)); Pointer vCourt had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to hearPointer’s action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”); Thomas v505-06 (6th Cir. 2006) (“Because Morrison alleged the violation501 F.3d at 560). “[A] federal court has subject-matterEducation necessarily raises a federal issue. (See Am. ComplShelby County Board of Education administers only a separate andCommission’s actions are lawful. That principle is a federalMemphis voters in the electorate for the Shelby County Board ofEducation is unconstitutional and the Shelby County Commission’sF.3d at 246-51. Regardless, the Court must decide whether theStates Constitution. The parties dispute whether MemphisBoard of Education. (Compare Shelby County Board of EducationBoard not proportionate – it is nonexistent. In the face ofStates Department of Justice and the United States Department of(See Am. Compl. 1-2.) The federal question is important. ItMemphis residents on the Shelby County Board of Education if theShelby County Board of Education is not responsible forConstitution prevents the State of Tennessee from includingEducation where Memphis voters resided outside the Shelby CountySchools district). A determination of whether the Shelby CountyBoard of Education must include representation for MemphisShelby County Board of Education’s declaratory judgmentEducation. See Jones v. Board of County Commissioners of ShelbyF.3d at 573). The facts presented by this case are exceptionalU.S.C. § 1343(a)(4) (granting district courts original(“[F]ederal courts have consistently held elected state boardsCounty Board of Education’s state-law claim against the ShelbyF.3d at 594Fourteenth Amendment “are principally created by state law”);County residing in Memphis have representation on the ShelbyCounty Board of Education. (See Shelby County CommissionBoard of Education and appoint members representing MemphisSee Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-2-201(a)(1) (“Members of county boardsSupp. 2d at 618. The Shelby County Board of Education has1343(a)(4) over the Shelby County Board of Education’s claimCounty Board of Education’s remaining state-law claims becausePublic Chapter 1 violates the Equal Protection Clause of theECF No. 49.) The Shelby County Commission alleges that PublicChapter 1 violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United StatesConstitution. (See Shelby County Commission Countercl. ¶¶ 73-F. Supp. 2d 863, 872 (N.D. Ohio 2009) (“[T]his Court mayIntervening Plaintiffs’ claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that theShelby County Commission has violated their due process rightsPlaintiffs’ claim that the Shelby County Commission has violatedIII:See Sch. Dist. of City of Pontiac v. Sec’y of U.S. Dep’t ofF.3d at 282 (“‘[A]n economic injury which is traceable to theBoard of Education acknowledges that it “has obligations underNo Child Left Behind traceable to the Secretary of the UnitedStates Department of Education’s interpretation of No Child LeftA favorable decision would be likely to redress the Board’sMemphis schoolchildren affected by the defendants’ actions. See1289-90 (6th Cir. 1974) (concluding that a board of educationShelby County Board of Education satisfies the constitutionalSupreme Court has considered “two factual elements” in decidingCounty Board of Education to assert the rights of Memphis(Am. Compl. ¶ 44.) Those obligations give it a closeFourteenth Amendment within the intendment of Article III of theEducation and Memphis schoolchildren is “such that the former isCompl. ¶ 43.) Those hindrances include the substantial expenseBoard of Education or the Memphis City Board of Education isBoard of Education’s continuing to conduct business. MemphisF.3d at 206 (quoting Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. AmericansThe Shelby County Board of Education satisfies the prudentialF.3d 609, 615 (6th Cir. 2008)). “Ripeness separates those615). The Sixth Circuit has also described the test forF.2d at 157 (quoting S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. City of Los Angeles,Memphis.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 44.) The Board alleges that theSchools. Whether Memphis voters’ lack of representation on thePublic Chapter 1 or the purpose expressed in its preamble. (SeeCity Board of Education alleges that Public Chapter 1’s additionCounty Commission alleges that Public Chapter 1 violates Articlesubsection would not occur until an attempt was made to create a(“Ripeness requires that the ‘injury in fact be certainlysection (b)(3) to Tennessee Code Annotated § 49-2-502 are not(b)(3) to Tennessee Code Annotated § 49-2-502 are not ripe. See309. Therefore, the claims of the City of Memphis, the Memphissection (b)(3) is unconstitutional are DISMISSEDF.2d at 1181 (quoting Golden, 394 U.S. at 108). The partiesF.3d 546, 554 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Wilton v. Seven FallsF.2d 323, 326 (6th Cir. 1984)); accord Northland Ins. Co. vShelby County Commission’s ordinance and resolution expandingBoard of Education. A declaration of the parties’ presentCounty Board of Education bears responsibility for educatingCommission has the right to redistrict the Shelby County BoardF.3d 964, 969 (6th Cir. 2000)). “This consideration appears to(6th Cir. 1984). “State statutes mean what state courts sayF.3d 384, 387 (11th Cir. 1994) (“When construing a stateId. (citation omitted). “Courts must presume that a legislative(Tenn. 2002)). “Our charge is to uphold the constitutionalityEducation’s charter “to authorize the Board of Education of theMemphis City Schools to dissolve the charter of the Memphis CityCommissioners of the City of Memphis.” 1961 Tenn. Priv. ActsChapter 375. The 1961 Act provides that all laws in conflictEducation alleges that the 1961 Private Act is unconstitutionalCounty Board of Education addressed the 1961 Private Act andWe’re withdrawing our attack on the face of [sic] validity ofEducation asserts in its final brief that “[t]he 1961 Private2001) (citations omitted). The 1961 Private Act isTennessee Constitution. They allege that Public Chapter 1ECF No. 241.) They also allege that Public Chapter 1 violatesAnnotated § 1-3-101 (Shelby County Commission Countercl. ¶¶ 91-(1972). The Supreme Court “insist[s] that laws give the personId. “A statute is void for vagueness where it ‘fails to give aTennessee Constitution because it is impermissibly vague. (SeeShelby County Schools. (See id. at 28.) Certain questions areChapter 1 is not void for vagueness under the FourteenthChapter 1 violates the Fourteenth Amendment under the City ofChapter 1. The Memphis City Council provides no authority forCourt also cannot accept the City Council’s argument the one-Public Chapter 1 does not violate the Equal Protection Clause(quoting Chattanooga-Hamilton Cnty. Hosp. Auth. v. City ofTennessee General Assembly “has specifically declared that the2 S.W.3d at 188. Tennessee Code Annotated § 1-3-110 providesTenn. Code Ann. § 1-3-110. “[W]hen a conclusion can be reachedChapter 1467. The title of Public Chapter 1 is general, broad, and958 S.W.2d at 336. It may properly include matters “naturallyChapter 2, relative to administration of local education958 S.W.2d at 336. “[T]he ‘[s]ubject matter of the act isS.W.2d at 53). “[U]nless the classification ‘interferes withGeneral Assembly’s increasing the limits of liability under theTennessee Court of Appeals found that “the state cost share*6. The court noted that “[t]he constitution mandates only thatMemphis City Schools and Shelby County Schools. See id. PublicChapter 1 does not violate Article II, § 24 of the TennesseeSupreme Court has “construed this provision as prohibiting lawsChapter 1. Before Public Chapter 1 was passed, Tennessee Code(2009). Because Public Chapter 1 affects only transfers of787 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (quoting State ex rel. Bell vCommission cannot claim that Public Chapter 1 impaired its2011. Public Chapter 1 advances the public interest, does notTenn. Code Ann. § 1-3-101. It is constitutional under the1961 Private Act does not authorize “immediate dissolution” ofDepartment of Education and Commissioner Kevin Huffman take theS.W.3d at 74 (citations omitted). “The general rule is that(citations omitted). “[T]he Legislature is presumed to haveMemphis City Board of Education to surrender the charter of theMemphis City Schools. The Act authorizes the Board of EducationState. See id. Because the 1961 Private Act is clear andCourt presumes that the Tennessee General Assembly was aware ofPublic Chapter 1 and enacted Tennessee Code Annotated § 49-5-Chapter 1 imposes, under certain circumstances, a process thatAnnotated § 49-5-203(d). It requires the Tennessee CommissionerSee id. (“Prior to the change in any governmental structure orMemphis City Schools’ charter and surrender it to the TennesseeActs Chapter 375. The Memphis City Board of Education passed aEducation’s surrender of the Memphis City Schools’ charter248 (Tenn. 2000); State ex rel. Bd. of Educ. of Memphis CityTennessee courts have concluded that Memphis City Schools is aThose findings are not dicta. They are essential to the courts’1996). The Tennessee Court of Appeals cited the AttorneyGeneral’s 2005 opinion with approval in State ex rel. Bd. ofEduc. of Memphis City Schools v. City of Memphis. See State ex474. The court’s reference is worth repeating: “As the AttorneyChapter 67; 1961 Tenn. Priv. Acts Chapter 375. The referendum242.) The Memphis City Council resolution approving the MemphisCity Board of Education’s charter surrender specifically refersSee Tenn. Code Ann. § 49–2–502(a). Public Chapter 1 states thatGovernor of Tennessee signed Public Chapter 1 into law no laterMemphis City Schools to the Shelby County Board of Education onMemphis City Schools could not be transferred to the ShelbyCounty Board of Education before voters approved the transfer onSchools to the Shelby County Board of Education is a § 49–2–502Tennessee Constitution’s guarantee “that the General AssemblyCity Board of Education to surrender the charter of the MemphisCity Schools. See 1961 Tenn. Priv. Acts Chapter 375. OnceShelby County Board of Education assumes ultimate responsibilityTennessee Code Annotated § 49-1-102(c) and TennesseeChapter 1 does not address or limit the default outcome of aTennessee Department of Education stated during the evidentiaryMemphis City Schools’ charter as authorized by the 1961 PrivateAct. See 1961 Tenn. Priv. Acts Chapter 375; (PreliminaryShelby County Election Commission conduct a referendum toShelby County Board of Education pursuant to Tennessee CodePublic Chapter 1 apply to the transfer of the administration ofEducation. See 2011 Tenn. Pub. Acts Chapter 1. Before the229 F.3d at 574 (“It is undisputed that [a student] enjoyed aFourteenth Amendment rights of Memphis schoolchildren have notCode Ann. § 49-1-102(c) (“There shall be a local public schoolMemphis City Schools and Shelby County Schools operateTennessee Code Annotated §§ 49-2-1201(i) and 49-2-1204. SeeTenn. Code Ann. § 49-2-502(b)(2). The Board is responsible forMemphis City Board of Education have no authority to oversee orBoard of Education violated the United States Constitution whereProtection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that eachShelby County Board of Education did not educate studentsNo. 240-2). Memphis residents are not represented on the ShelbyCounty Board of Education and have not been permitted to vote93. The Sixth Circuit did not address the situation at issue inShelby County Schools have been combined. The Board must makeBoard of Education has no representatives elected by Memphis69 F.3d at 93. Compared to the residents challenging the NewId. at 68-69 (citations omitted). The Court concluded that theSchool Board by allowing the Mayor of Cleveland to appoint a newId. at 405 (citation omitted). The Sixth Circuit concluded thatCleveland’s appointive system “appears more like the exercise ofEducation. Issues of voter inclusion are present and Kramer(“The Commissioners do not have a constitutional right to publicCounty Board of Education from seven to twenty-five during anyCounty outside the City of Memphis could continue to be2012. (See id.)Education from seven to twenty-five. The Tennessee Court ofChapter 381 of the Private Acts of 1923. See Shelby CountyDocumentView.aspx?DID=475. The Shelby County Charter can onlyChapter 381 of the Private Acts of 1923 has not been validlyCounty Board of Education have seven members. The Shelby CountyCommission’s expansion of the Shelby County Board of EducationMemphis City Council has approved the Memphis City Board ofState. The surrender of the Memphis City Schools’ charter does1901); see also Cherry Hill Fire Co. No. 1 v. Cherry Hill FireCity Board of Education also sought to transfer theBoard of Education pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated § 49-2-Memphis City Board of Education has authority to operate theShelby County and the City of Memphis “are required to fund theMemphis’ obligation to fund the education of MemphisCounty Board of Education must ensure that the Commissioner ofSchools to the Shelby County Board of Education cannot beAll pending motions in this case are DENIED AS MOOT0 of .Results for: No results containing your search query{{& result_text }}{[ } ]}
P. 1Microsoft Word - FINAL Order Deciding Case - FINALMicrosoft Word - FINAL Order Deciding Case - FINALRatings: (0)|Views: 146|Likes: 0Published by langwisemanMore info:Published by: langwiseman on Aug 14, 2011Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/62287838/Microsoft-Word-FINAL-Order-Deciding-Case-FINAL08/14/2011pdftextoriginal IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISIONBOARD OF EDUCATION OF SHELBYCOUNTY, TENNESSEE, et al.,)))Plaintiffs, )) v. ) No. 11-2101) MEMPHIS CITY BOARD OFEDUCATION, et al.,)))Defendants. ) ORDER Plaintiff Board of Education of Shelby County, Tennessee(“Shelby County Board of Education”) filed a complaint for adeclaratory judgment on February 11, 2011. (ECF No. 1.) Itfiled an amended complaint on March 3, 2011. (ECF No. 22.)Defendant City of Memphis filed an answer and counterclaims onMarch 17, 2011. (ECF No. 49.) Defendant Memphis City Councilfiled an answer, counterclaim, and cross-claim on March 17,2011. (ECF No. 50.) Defendant Memphis City Board of Education(the “Memphis City Board of Education” or the “Board ofEducation of the Memphis City Schools”) filed an answer,counterclaim, and cross-claim on March 18, 2011. (ECF No. 52.)Defendant Board of County Commissioners of Shelby County,Tennessee (“Shelby County Commission”) filed an answer and
Case 2:11­cv­02101­SHM­cgc Document 243 Filed 08/08/11 Page 1 of 146 PageID 7046
counterclaim on March 22, 2011. (ECF No. 62.) DefendantsTennessee Department of Education and Patrick Smith, in his thenofficial capacity as Acting Commissioner of the TennesseeDepartment of Education, filed an answer on March 23, 2011.(ECF No. 64.) On April 2, 2011, intervening plaintiffs SnowdenCarruthers, Michael Wissman, David Reaves, Joseph Clayton, andDavid Pickler (“Intervening Plaintiffs”) filed a verifiedintervening complaint. (ECF No. 103.)The Tennessee Department of Education and Kevin Huffman, inhis Official Capacity as Commissioner of the TennesseeDepartment of Education, answered the Memphis City Council’scross-claim and the Memphis City Board of Education’s cross-claim on April 12, 2011. (ECF No. 113; ECF No. 114.) TheShelby County Board of Education answered the counterclaimsfiled by the City of Memphis, the Memphis City Council, theMemphis City Board of Education, and the Shelby CountyCommission on April 12, 2011. (ECF No. 115; ECF No. 116; ECFNo. 117; ECF No. 118.) The City of Memphis answered the MemphisCity Board of Education’s cross-claim on April 12, 2011. (ECFNo. 119.) The Memphis City Council answered the Memphis CityBoard of Education’s cross-claim and filed a counterclaim onApril 12, 2011. (ECF No. 121.) Intervening defendants MemphisEducation Association, Keith O. Williams, and Karl Thomas Emens
Case 2:11­cv­02101­SHM­cgc Document 243 Filed 08/08/11 Page 2 of 146 PageID 7047
filed an answer and counterclaim on May 11, 2011. (ECF No.176.)The Court held a hearing on May 12, 2011, and May 13, 2011,at which it received proof in the form of testimony and exhibitsand heard oral arguments. (See ECF No. 177; ECF No. 178.) Theparties agreed that the Court would decide this matter based onthe testimony, the written record, and the affidavits before itafter the submission of final briefs on June 30, 2011. (ECF No.182.) Based on that record, the Court makes the followingfindings of fact and conclusions of law and orders the followingdeclaratory relief.
Background The parties do not dispute the material facts in this case.The public school system in Memphis (the “Memphis City Schools”)is the largest school system in Tennessee and the twenty-thirdlargest public school system in the United States. (SeeDistrict Budget 20, ECF No. 200-2; ECF No. 199-7.) It hasapproximately 105,000 students and 209 schools. (See DistrictBudget 20, ECF No. 200-2; ECF No. 199-7.) The studentdemographics are 85.7% African-American, 7.0% Caucasian, 5.9%Hispanic, and 1.4% other races and nationalities. (See DistrictBudget 20, ECF No. 200-2; ECF No. 199-7.) Memphis City Schoolsanticipates enrolling 108,461 students during the 2011-2012school year. (See District Budget 388, ECF No. 201-1.)
Case 2:11­cv­02101­SHM­cgc Document 243 Filed 08/08/11 Page 3 of 146 PageID 7048
More From This UserRental ApplicationlangwisemanLetter to TN Senators re: ALS (SEE INSTRUCTIONS)langwisemanOrder Granting Millington' Motion for Summary JudgmentlangwisemanMemorandum of Law in Support of Summary JudgmentlangwisemanComplaintlangwisemanComplaintlangwisemanSample Depo TranscriptlangwisemanUniv of Memphis Public Infractions ReportlangwisemanCalipari Employment Agreementlangwiseman