Opinion ID: 442149
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Events Prior to the First Appeal

Text: 2 As we explained in our first opinion, see United States v. Board of Education of Chicago, 717 F.2d 378 (7th Cir.1983), this case arises from a complaint that the United States filed against the Board on September 24, 1980, charging that Chicago's public school system was racially segregated in violation of the fourteenth amendment and titles IV and VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. On the same day, the parties filed a previously-negotiated consent decree (Decree) in which they agreed that the Board would develop and implement a system-wide plan to remedy the effects of past segregation on black and Hispanic students in Chicago schools. Beginning in 1981, the Board developed and implemented a desegregation plan, which was later approved by the district court. See United States v. Board of Education of Chicago, 554 F.Supp. 912 (N.D.Ill.1983). 3 On May 31, 1983, the Board petitioned for an order directing the United States to comply with p 15.1 of the Decree, which provides that 4 [e]ach party is obligated to make every good faith effort to find and provide every available form of financial resources adequate for the implementation of the desegregation plan. 5 After five days of hearings, the district court entered an order on June 30, 1983 (1983 Order), finding that the United States had violated p 15.1 by failing to provide adequate desegregation funding, by taking no affirmative steps to find and provide such funding, and by taking affirmative steps to minimize and eliminate available sources of funding. See United States v. Board of Education of Chicago, 567 F.Supp. 272, 286-87 (N.D.Ill.1983). The court held that under the plain meaning of p 15.1, and also because the government actively worked to make funds unavailable, the United States was obligated to take every affirmative step within its legal authority to find and provide adequate financing for the plan. Id. at 283 (Conclusion of Law No. 7). According to the district court, this obligation required the United States to provide presently available funds, to find every available source of funds, to support specific legislative initiatives to meet the obligations of the Board, and not [to] fail[ ] to seek appropriations that could be used for desegregation assistance to the Board. Id. (Conclusion of Law No. 9). The court decided that, at a minimum, the United States was to provide the portion of funding adequate for full implementation of the desegregation plan that the Board could not provide, to the extent such funding was available to or could be made available by the United States. Id. at 287-88. For the 1983-84 school year, the district court found that this obligation was not less than $14.6 million, and the court enjoined the United States from spending or obligating certain funds in several of the Department of Education's monetary accounts so as to insure that these funds would remain available pending the final resolution of the case.