Opinion ID: 73666
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: conclusion

Text: Based on the foregoing reasons, it is clear that the 1973 Order was not intended as a finding that Troup County had achieved unitary status as of that time.8 Our interpretation of the 1973 Order is clear from the plain language of the 1973 Order itself which is flatly inconsistent with having been intended as a finding of unitary status. Our interpretation is also supported by the historical meaning of the term unitary in the 1973 time frame, and by precedent. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED. 8 Nothing in this opinion should be read as commenting on whether the Troup County School District has indeed achieved unitary status since the 1973 Order. Thus, Troup County is in no way prohibited from seeking a declaration of unitary status at the earliest possible juncture. Our holding today confirms only that the 1973 Order does not constitute a finding of unitary status so as to make it inappropriate for the district court to have retained jurisdiction and supervision of this case over the intervening years. Our holding today does not pretermit appropriate proceedings in the future, pursuant to Lockett v. Board of Education of Muscogee County, 111 F.3d 839 (11th Cir.1997), which might culminate in a finding of unitary status. 11