Opinion ID: 2654484
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Are All Issues Pertaining to Act 2 Moot?

Text: We start our review by analyzing whether the plaintiffs’ claims with respect to Act 2 are moot following the Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana Federation of Teachers. We find instructive a decision involving whether a city was legally permitted to charge a company various fees. AT&T Commc’n of Sw., Inc. v. City of Austin, 235 F.3d 241, 244 (5th Cir. 2000). By the time of our review of a district court’s ruling, the city had repealed the ordinance requiring the fees and had waived any right to collect past-due fees. Id. We held the question of whether the city was legally permitted to charge these fees was moot, since the city no longer had any claim to the fees and the company was no longer obligated to pay them. The plaintiffs’ claims with regard to Act 2 rest upon the diversion of funds from the public school system to private schools or other non-public educational organizations. The essence of this claim was that the diverted funds could not be used to pay for various projects contemplated by the Consent Decree, and therefore impaired the ability of the School Board to comply. This impairment, in turn, would harm the students of the school district by depriving them of the benefits to which they were entitled under the Consent Decree. 5 Case: 12-31218 Document: 00512541962 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/24/2014 No. 12-31218 The Louisiana Supreme Court has now invalidated this provision of Act 2, holding that the state constitution required all MFP funds to be allocated to public schools and not be diverted elsewhere. Louisiana Fed’n of Teachers, 118 So. 3d at 1055. Consequently, the School Board and plaintiffs no longer face the threat of losing those funds. Whatever impairment or injury to the plaintiffs might have arisen from diversion of MFP funds from the school district cannot now occur. As there is no longer any threat to the Consent Decree or the students in Tangipahoa Parish from the diversion of MFP funds, all issues pertaining to Act 2 are moot. “Where an appeal is dismissed by reason of mootness, the appellate court is to vacate the decision below and direct that it be dismissed for mootness, so that it will spawn no legal consequences.” Lebus for and on Behalf of N.L.R.B. v. Seafarers’ Int’l Union of N. Am., Atlantic, Gulf, Lakes and Inland Waters Dist., AFL-CIO, 398 F.2d 281, 283 (5th Cir. 1968). The district court shall dismiss all issues pertaining to Act 2 as moot. B. Did the District Court have Jurisdiction to Enjoin the State Defendants? The Eleventh Amendment codified the sovereign immunity of the several states. Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261, 267 (1997). Federal courts are without jurisdiction over suits against a state, a state agency, or a state official in his official capacity unless that state has waived its sovereign immunity or Congress has clearly abrogated it. Id.; Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 55 (1996). Despite this bar, a federal court may enjoin a state official in his official capacity from taking future actions in furtherance of a state law that offends federal law or the federal Constitution. See Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. at 269 (citing Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908)). Only state officials, not state agencies, may be enjoined. 6 Case: 12-31218 Document: 00512541962 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/24/2014 No. 12-31218 Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 146 (1993). Whether state defendants are entitled to sovereign immunity is a question of law, reviewed de novo on appeal. See King, 642 F.3d at 497. The plaintiffs sought an injunction against the BESE and the Louisiana Department of Education. The state defendants argue that as to the two agencies, this suit is substantially a suit against the state itself. We agree. The Young exception “has no application in suits against the States and their agencies, which are barred regardless of the relief sought.” See Metcalf & Eddy, 506 U.S. at 146. (emphasis added). Two of the state defendants, the BESE and the Department of Education, are not individual officers, but rather agencies of the state. We conclude the district court abused its discretion by exercising jurisdiction over the two state agency defendants, which enjoy sovereign immunity against such exercises of jurisdiction. White is the Superintendent of Education for the State of Louisiana. Plaintiffs sued to enjoin him from implementing and enforcing Act 1 because the Act’s provisions are “contrary [to] the remedial nature” of the Consent Decree with respect to employment of black teachers. Plaintiffs further contend that the new termination framework is “subjective” and therefore “open[s] the door to restoration of the standard less subjectivity that impacted on the presence of black teachers” in Tangipahoa Parish. These claims are apparently based on allegations of discrimination credited by the district court during the course of the desegregation proceedings in the parish. Nonetheless, no party has presented any evidence that White has yet taken any action pursuant to Act 1 that has violated federal law, nor that his implementation of Act 1 will result in a direct violation of federal law. See Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. at 269. The district court did not make factual findings regarding any present or future implementation efforts, but merely concluded that the teacher discharge provisions might frustrate the Consent Decree’s 7 Case: 12-31218 Document: 00512541962 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/24/2014 No. 12-31218 stated goal of increasing the number and proportion of black teachers. It is true that a federal court may enjoin a state official in his official capacity from taking future actions in furtherance of a state law that offends federal law or the federal Constitution. Id. (citing Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123). Far from presenting evidence of a potential violation of the federal constitution or law, though, the plaintiffs have not even shown that anything White has done or may validly do under Act 1 creates a tangible conflict with the Consent Decree in light of Act 1’s plain statement that it shall be implemented in compliance with all desegregation orders. Since the BESE and the Louisiana Department of Education are agencies and suing them is the same as suing the State of Louisiana itself, we conclude the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter an injunction against the two state agency defendants. See Metcalf & Eddy, 506 U.S. at 146. White cannot be enjoined without some showing that Act 1 is causing or will cause him to violate federal law and that the prospective relief is necessary to prevent such a violation. See Young, 209 U.S. at 159-60. Since the state defendants enjoy sovereign immunity, and the Young exception is inapplicable, we conclude the district court abused its discretion by entering the injunction barring the implementation of Act 1. The injunction is VACATED and this case REMANDED for dismissal of all claims. 8