Court Opinion

ID: 9907299
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-06 01:00:32.517362+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:58:36.487702
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30328    Document: 00516991049       Page: 1     Date Filed: 12/05/2023

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit                          United States Court of Appeals
                                                                       Fifth Circuit

                              ____________                           FILED
                                                             December 5, 2023
                               No. 23-30328                     Lyle W. Cayce
                              ____________                           Clerk

   M. C. Moore, as father and next friend to minors Joyce Marie
   Moore, Jerry Moore, and Thelma Louise Moore; Henry
   Smith, as father and next friend to minors Bennie Smith,
   Charles Edward Smith, Shirley Ann Smith, and Earline
   Smith,

                                                        Plaintiffs—Appellants,

                                    versus

   Tangipahoa Parish School Board, a corporation,

                                                        Defendant—Appellee,

   Janice Fultz Richards, President, Tangipahoa Parish School Board;
   Melissa Martin Stilley, Superintendent, Tangipahoa Parish School
   System,

                                                                        Appellees.
                 ______________________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                          USDC No. 2:65-CV-15556
                 ______________________________
Case: 23-30328       Document: 00516991049             Page: 2      Date Filed: 12/05/2023

                                        No. 23-30328

   Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
           Having carefully considered this appeal in light of the parties’ briefs,
   the district court’s decision, and pertinent portions of the record, we find no
   reversible error of fact or law and affirm the judgment.
           Plaintiffs, Taj Jackson and his parents, appeal the district court’s
   modification of its desegregation order as it pertains to the athletic eligibility
   of certain student transfers. Jackson, an African American student and high
   school basketball player, received an approved Majority to Minority transfer
   from predominantly black Hammond High School to predominantly white
   Ponchatoula High School in June 2022.1 After receiving the transfer, Jackson
   was informed by the Louisiana High School Athletic Association (LHSAA)
   that he would be ineligible to play on the varsity basketball team at
   Ponchatoula that year. The relevant provision of the desegregation order in
   effect at the time of Jackson’s transfer followed all LHSAA eligibility
   requirements—including one year of ineligibility for any student who
   transferred to another school outside of their athletic zones.
           Jackson sought equitable relief in the district court, including a
   temporary restraining order that would allow him to play basketball at
   Ponchatoula High School. In January 2023, the district court granted the
   temporary restraining order, finding that the language of the desegregation

           _____________________
           *
              Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
   should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set
   forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
           1
            Jackson and his parents are members of the class of African American students
   and parents in the desegregation case, which has been ongoing since 1965. See Moore v.
   Tangipahoa Par. Sch. Bd., 864 F.3d 401, 403 (5th Cir. 2017).

                                              2
Case: 23-30328      Document: 00516991049          Page: 3    Date Filed: 12/05/2023

                                    No. 23-30328

   order in effect at the time could potentially have “a chilling effect upon
   achieving student assignment improvements and final unitary status.”
          In April 2023, the district court modified the athletic eligibility
   provision of the desegregation order in the opinion now appealed by
   plaintiffs. That modification stated that:
          High school interscholastic athletic eligibility shall be governed
          by rules of the Louisiana High School Athletic Association with
          the following exceptions:
                 (A). M-to-M or Diversity transfer, magnet transfer and
                 academic transfer students, students enrolled under the
                 joint custody provisions in Paragraph 5 of Rec.
                 Doc. 876, students enrolled in a school pursuant to the
                 transfer option in Paragraph 1(H) of Rec. Doc. 876, and
                 students enrolled in school pursuant to the transfer
                 option in Paragraph 6 of Rec. Doc. 876, regardless of
                 grade level at the time of transfer, shall be eligible to
                 participate in all interscholastic athletic programs in the
                 year of the initial transfer.
                 (B). M-to-M or Diversity transfer, magnet transfer and
                 academic transfer students, students enrolled under the
                 joint custody provisions in Paragraph 5 of Rec.
                 Doc. 876, students enrolled in a school pursuant to the
                 transfer option in Paragraph 1(H) of Rec. Doc. 876, and
                 students enrolled in a school pursuant to the transfer
                 option in Paragraph 6 of Rec. Doc. 876 electing to return
                 to their sending or home student attendance zone
                 school shall be immediately eligible to participate in all
                 interscholastic athletic programs.
   Due to this amendment, students who utilize any transfer option available
   under the desegregation orders are immediately eligible for athletics in their
   new schools and are no longer required to sit out for one year as otherwise
   required by LHSAA rules. Several days after issuing the opinion, the district

                                          3
Case: 23-30328          Document: 00516991049        Page: 4    Date Filed: 12/05/2023

                                      No. 23-30328

   court also issued an order that dismissed as moot plaintiff’s motion for
   injunctive relief.
          Plaintiffs now challenge the district court’s dismissal of his request for
   further injunctive relief and the district court’s opinion, arguing that the
   relief he has obtained up to this point is insufficient. We disagree. The newly
   modified desegregation order ensures that Jackson, and all other African
   American students subject to the desegregation orders, will have immediate
   athletic eligibility in their new schools after utilizing any transfer option
   available under the desegregation orders. The district court considered
   plaintiffs’ issues and ruled in their favor. As a result, no additional injunctive
   relief is necessary and the plaintiffs’ request for additional injunctive relief is
   moot. In any event, plaintiffs have failed to brief, and therefore waived, any
   other issues. See Askanase v. Fatjo, 130 F.3d 657, 668 (5th Cir. 1997) (“All
   issues not briefed are waived.”). AFFIRMED.

                                           4