Case: United States of America v. State of Mississippi

3:70-cv-04706 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi

Filed Date: July 9, 1970

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

Fifteen years after Brown v. Board of Education (1954), 88% of Mississippi’s black students still attended all-black schools. Ubiquitous “freedom of choice” plans let white children transfer to predominantly white schools. Individual lawsuits and threats of funding cuts from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare proved unable to effect wholesale desegregation. But in 1969, the Supreme Court ruled that the freedom of choice plan in Holmes County, Mississippi, was unconstitutional and …

Fifteen years after Brown v. Board of Education (1954), 88% of Mississippi’s black students still attended all-black schools. Ubiquitous “freedom of choice” plans let white children transfer to predominantly white schools. Individual lawsuits and threats of funding cuts from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare proved unable to effect wholesale desegregation. But in 1969, the Supreme Court ruled that the freedom of choice plan in Holmes County, Mississippi, was unconstitutional and ordered districts to “begin immediately to operate as unitary school systems.” Alexander v. Holmes County Board of Education, 396 U.S. 19 (1969). This case is one part of a larger effort that desegregated 146 of Mississippi’s 148 districts within a year of Alexander.

On July 9, 1970, the United States filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. It sued the State of Mississippi under 42 U.S.C. § 2000c-6, alleging that Mississippi’s use of racially segregated schools violated the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Thirteen Mississippi public school districts immediately intervened as defendants; three more would join them later. The United States sought injunctions ordering the districts to operate “unitary” (integrated) schools.

The next day, the court ordered the districts to submit plans for “immediate conversion” to unitary systems. It set a deadline of one week, and the districts quickly drew up desegregation plans. Over the next two months, the court issued a series of injunctions requiring districts to implement their desegregation plans, and several districts entered into consent decrees. The orders typically required districts to:

  • Stop discriminating against individual students;
  • Dismantle overlapping busing systems for students of different races;
  • Adopt new school zones or assignment plans of students to different schools;
  • Provide regular reports to the court; and
  • Take all other “reasonable and necessary steps” to integrate the schools.
Several individual students also intervened as plaintiffs to obtain injunctions allowing them to attend specific schools during the 1970-71 school year.

Since 1970, and continuing into 2019, the court has monitored the districts’ compliance. The following sections illustrate what kinds of disputes that have arisen.

Unwillingness to Desegregate Schools

The Laurel Municipal School District had been ordered to desegregate in 1970. In 1977, it operated seven elementary schools. Three were all black. Two were all white, except for twelve students. The other two were at least 70% white. The district court’s response arrived in July: it directed the school board to “again consider pairing or clustering the elementary schools” and determined that a “transportation study should be made.” The court cited “rather extreme physical difficulties” that integration might cause to justify its delay.

The Fifth Circuit reversed in a brief per curiam opinion issued on February 1, 1978. It directed the school district to desegregate by the start of the 1978 school year and ordered the district court to adopt a new plan by May 1st. 567 F.2d 1276 (5th Cir. 1978). In response, the district court directed the school district to close two elementaries entirely, teach grades four through six at two of the existing schools, and teach grades one through three at the remaining three.

State Support for Segregation Academies

In 1963-64, Mississippi was home to only sixteen private, non-Catholic schools. By 1969-70, it had 124. Many of the new private schools opened during this time were “segregation academies” designed to allow whites to avoid integration by withdrawing from public education entirely. Some segregation academies sought implicit or explicit state financial support. Therefore, courts closely scrutinized efforts by Mississippi's state or local governments to evade desegregation orders by providing aid to segregation academies.

Here, the United States alleged that Smith County provided unlawful subsidies to the Sylvarena Baptist Academy, a private school in Smith County open only to whites. In particular, five months after the court ordered Smith County's public schools to desegregate, the County allowed the Academy to lease a vacant public school for $5.00 per year.

The United States moved for relief from the court, arguing that the lease constituted “state financial assistance” for segregated schools designed to “reestablish a dual school system.” The district court, a panel of the Fifth Circuit, and the Fifth Circuit en banc all agreed. Circuit Judge Gewin held that “‘white flight’ academies will not be sanctioned” and voided the Academy’s lease. Judge Gewin's opinion relied on the Supreme Court's holding in Norwood v. Harrison that states could not provide aid to private schools that discriminated based on race. 476 F.2d 941 (5th Cir. 1973); 499 F.2d 425 (5th Cir. 1974).

Efforts to Limit Integration to Prevent White Flight

The Hattiesburg Municipal Separate School District entered into a consent decree in 1970 to desegregate its schools. But by 1985, eight of the eleven elementary schools remained at least 80% white or 80% black. The court weighed several possible desegregation plans. One used a “mandatory reassignment pairing and clustering” approach to ensure that no school would have a student body that had more than 80% students of one race. Another modestly adjusted existing boundaries but called for the creation and promotion of two magnet schools to attract children of both races. The District agreed with the United States to adopt the magnet school approach, but children intervened as plaintiffs to challenge it. The intervenors objected to the District's plan on several grounds: its lack of specificity about the magnet school programs, the greater burden it placed on black children who would be transferred farther from home, and its lack of potential to effect substantial integration. Nevertheless, Judge Tom S. Lee rejected the clustering plan, which he found would “cause much more white flight” and “continue to do so at a faster rate” than the magnet school plan. 622 F. Supp. 662 (S.D. Miss. 1985).

The Fifth Circuit reversed in an opinion written by Judge John Minor Wisdom. Judge Wisdom was one of the “Fifth Circuit Four,” a group of progressive judges who aggressively enforced civil rights laws. He characterized the magnet school plan as “too little and too late” and the district court’s opinion as “a voice from the past crying for ‘gradualism.’” Primarily objecting to the fact that magnet schools would serve only a small number of students while leaving many more in overwhelmingly segregated schools, Judge Wisdom reversed and remanded the case. He instructed the district court to consider “mandatory reassignment” and “pairing and clustering” so that no schools remained entirely black. 808 F.2d 385 (5th Cir. 1987). The district court adopted a new consent decree on April 29, 1987.

Consolidation of City and County Schools

The City of Laurel is located in Jones County. The Laurel School District serves students who live in Laurel, and the Jones County School District serves students in Jones County who live outside of Laurel. Tensions between the City and County led to an unusual dispute in which the NAACP and State of Mississippi worked together to defeat an effort by the United States to integrate the City and County schools.

Both the Laurel and Jones County School Districts had agreed to desegregation plans in 1970. At the time, the Laurel schools were split roughly equally between black and white students, whereas the County schools were about 80% white. By 1988, the City’s schools were 75% black, but the County’s racial composition remained about the same. During the intervening years, Mississippi did not consolidate the districts despite the potential for significant efficiency gains, and the state had made it easier for students to transfer between districts.

In December, 1987, Laurel tried to absorb some Jones County students by modifying the boundary between the Laurel School District and the Jones County School District. The action was removed to federal court and merged with this case because both the City and County desegregation plans contained Singleton provisions, which:

  • Prohibited moving students between districts in order to discriminate; and
  • Prohibited moving students between districts when doing so would have the “cumulative effect” of segregation.
The United States supported consolidation, which would help equalize the proportions of black and white students in the Laurel School District. Mississippi opposed it as part of a broader effort to prevent consolidation of city and county schools. Bizarrely, the NAACP intervened to support Mississippi’s position. Its counsel explained that consolidation would dilute black voting strength in majority-black Laurel. Moreover, Laurel’s schools outperformed their County counterparts; the Fifth Circuit speculated that the NAACP feared that the quality of instruction for black students would decline if consolidation occurred.

District Judge Tom S. Lee held that consolidation would only be an appropriate remedy if the County had violated the Singleton provisions of its desegregation plan. He then found that no violations occurred and vacated the consolidation order. 719 F. Supp. 1364 (S.D. Miss. 1989). The Fifth Circuit affirmed. Circuit Judge Thomas G. Gee recognized that Mississippi officially encouraged white flight by preventing city-county school consolidations and promoting interdistrict transfers. But he found that no white flight actually occurred in Jones County because its racial composition remained constant. 921 F.2d 604 (5th Cir. 1991).

Transition to Unitary Status

The Simpson County School District was placed under court supervision on August 10, 1970. After three decades, the District had tired of the oversight. On November 13, 2001, it moved for a declaration of unitary status to terminate the injunction to which it was subject. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s approval of unitary status in student body composition, transportation, extracurricular activities, and facilities and denial of unitary status in faculty and staff assignment on December 22, 2006. 211 Fed. App’x 296. Over the next decade, the District, federal government, and intervenors exhaustively litigated the District’s efforts to obtain a declaration of unitary status in faculty and staff assignments that would end all remaining supervision over the District.

The government and District entered into a new consent decree relating to faculty and staff assignments in 2011 requiring nondiscrimination and merit based hiring along with:

  • An end to the District’s “Transfer of Personnel within the District” policy; and
  • Good cause for all dismissals and non-renewals.
The District moved for a declaration of unitary status on January 30, 2013 on the grounds that it had complied with the consent decree.

In 1982, a group had intervened on behalf of the class of “present and future black children” in the District to enforce the original desegregation orders. The same group returned to court in 2013 to challenge the District’s motion. District Judge William H. Barbour, Jr., first cousin and former law partner of Haley Barbour, Mississippi’s governor from 2004 to 2012, questioned whether the Intervenors still had standing in the case. In a September 26, 2013 opinion, Judge Barbour held that they did have standing because the Intervenors had obtained class certification when they originally intervened. He rejected the Intervenors’ argument that the district discriminated by hiring more white teachers than black teachers because the consent decree required hiring the most qualified candidates regardless of race and scheduled a fairness hearing on the District’s motion for unitary status. 2013 WL 12176996.

The court received more than 500 objections to the District’s motion for declaration of unitary status from the public as part of its fairness hearing. Judge Barbour determined they were due “little weight” because most were short and generic. He then analyzed the District’s recent employment practices and found that the District had “eliminated the vestiges of prior de jure segregation to the extent practicable.” Nevertheless, he denied the District’s motion because it had failed to use court-approved forms in its hiring decisions. He extended the consent decree until 2015. 2014 BL 456699.

Both the District and Intervenors moved for reconsideration, which Judge Barbour denied. The Intervenors then appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which determined that the Intervenors lacked standing to appeal because they had prevailed at the district court. Circuit Judge Stewart rejected the Intervenors’ argument that they should be able to challenge the district court’s finding that the District had eliminated de jure segregation because “appellate courts review judgments, not opinions.” 805 F.3d 596 (2015).

The District moved promptly for unitary status once the extension of the consent decree expired in 2015. Judge Barbour determined that a school system “need not employ a faculty having a racial composition substantially equivalent to that of its student body” to fully desegregate. And he described the court’s fairness hearings as “forums for disgruntled applicants to present race-based employment grievances” rather than relevant inquiries into the District’s general policies and suggested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission would be a better forum to hear such complaints. Concluding that Simpson County’s schools were “fully integrated both as to students, and as to teachers,” he granted the District’s motion for unitary status on September 30, 2016. 2016 WL 7971190.

The Intervenors appealed. On February 6, 2018, the Fifth Circuit held that the district court’s ruling was “plausible in light of the record.” It acknowledged that many employees the district hired had “some connection” to those who hired them, but concluded that these connections were “not surprising” in such a small school district. And it accepted the district court’s finding that the District had “genuine” non-racial reasons for preferring certain candidates over others. 882 F.3d 151.

Current Status

The case is ongoing, and districts still under consent decrees continue to be monitored by the court. It appears likely that more school districts will move for declarations of unitary status in the coming years. Some already have: on September 11, 2018, the court declared the Poplarville Municipal Separate School District unitary, and the court granted Jones County's motion for a declaration of unitary status on May 1, 2019.

476 F.2d 941

499 F.2d 425

567 F.2d 1276

808 F.2d 385

921 F.2d 604

805 F.3d 596

882 F.3d 151

622 F. Supp. 662

719 F. Supp. 1364

2014 BL 456699

2013 WL 12176996

2016 WL 7971190

Summary Authors

Timothy Leake (3/1/2019)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7420980/parties/united-states-v-state-of-mississippi/


Judge(s)

Anderson, Linda Randle (Mississippi)

Barbour, William Henry Jr. (Mississippi)

Barksdale, Rhesa Hawkins (Mississippi)

Coleman, James Plemon (Louisiana)

Davidson, Glen H. (Mississippi)

Davis, W. Eugene (Louisiana)

Estes, Joe Ewing (Texas)

Fay, Peter Thorp (Florida)

Gee, Thomas Gibbs (Louisiana)

Gewin, Walter Pettus (Alabama)

Judge(s)

Anderson, Linda Randle (Mississippi)

Barbour, William Henry Jr. (Mississippi)

Barksdale, Rhesa Hawkins (Mississippi)

Coleman, James Plemon (Louisiana)

Davidson, Glen H. (Mississippi)

Davis, W. Eugene (Louisiana)

Estes, Joe Ewing (Texas)

Fay, Peter Thorp (Florida)

Gee, Thomas Gibbs (Louisiana)

Gewin, Walter Pettus (Alabama)

Higginbotham, Patrick Errol (Texas)

Jordan, Daniel Porter III (Mississippi)

Lee, Tom Stewart (Mississippi)

Owen, Priscilla Richman (Texas)

Prado, Edward Charles (Texas)

Rubin, Alvin Benjamin (Louisiana)

Simpson, John Milton Bryan (Florida)

Smith, Jerry Edwin (Texas)

Tjoflat, Gerald Bard (Florida)

Wiener, Jacques Loeb Jr. (Louisiana)

Wisdom, John Minor (Louisiana)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Acosta, R. Alexander (District of Columbia)

Berman, Amy I. (District of Columbia)

Bhargava, Anurima (District of Columbia)

Breen-Portnoy, Ceala Eloise (District of Columbia)

Cohen, Frances Susan (District of Columbia)

Cummings, Torey B. (District of Columbia)

Devine, Kathleen Susan (District of Columbia)

Dimsey, Dennis J. (District of Columbia)

Douglas, Nathaniel (District of Columbia)

Dowdy, John (Mississippi)

Eisenstein, Miriam R. (District of Columbia)

Fischbach, Jonathan (District of Columbia)

Guzman, Javier M (District of Columbia)

Hauberg, Robert E. Jr. (Mississippi)

Heubert, Jay P. (District of Columbia)

Holleman, Boyce (Mississippi)

Jernigan, Alfred B. Jr. (Mississippi)

Johnson, Jadine Caroline (District of Columbia)

Lampton, Dunn (Mississippi)

Longwitz, Tobi E. (District of Columbia)

Maranzano, Jennifer L. (District of Columbia)

Newton, Jonathan D. (District of Columbia)

Paige, Mitzi Dease (Mississippi)

Perez, Thomas E. (District of Columbia)

Phillips, George (Mississippi)

Wardenski, Joseph J (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Adams, Holmes S. (Mississippi)

Adelman, Michael (Mississippi)

Allison, Lawrence E Jr. (Mississippi)

Atkinson, C. Ashley (Mississippi)

Bearman, Charles L. (Mississippi)

Becker, James A. (Mississippi)

Caves, Terry L (Mississippi)

Chachkin, Norman J. (New York)

Clinton, Anita (Mississippi)

Deavors, W.M. (Mississippi)

Deloach, Sarah E. (Mississippi)

Googe, P. Roger Jr. (Mississippi)

Gore, Gregory (Mississippi)

Horn, Dennis L. (Mississippi)

Jenkins, Sabrina Whitehead (District of Columbia)

Mangum, Robert Leon (Mississippi)

May, Bill T. (Mississippi)

McBee, Dalton (Mississippi)

McKenzie, Franklin E. Jr. (Mississippi)

Meadows, Joseph R. (Mississippi)

Moore, John R. (District of Columbia)

Payne, Shirley (Mississippi)

Pedersen, Robert H. (Mississippi)

Piazza, Ben J. Jr. (Mississippi)

Pope, M. Jr. (Mississippi)

Sansing, J. Perry (Mississippi)

Steiner, Alison (Mississippi)

Stubbs, W. Terrell (Mississippi)

Thomas, James H.C. Jr (Mississippi)

Triplett, O.B. Jr. (Mississippi)

Wann, Steven Mark (Mississippi)

White, Frankie Walton (Mississippi)

Yoder, Richard L. (Mississippi)

Other Attorney(s)

Andrews, Dean (Mississippi)

Chaney, M. James Jr. (Mississippi)

Dougherty, Salliann S. M. (District of Columbia)

Hooks, John Simeon (Mississippi)

Keys, Suzanne Griggins (Mississippi)

McTeer, Charles Victor (Mississippi)

Miller, Pauline A. (District of Columbia)

Mord, Irving C. (Mississippi)

Palmer, Henry (Mississippi)

Rose, Laura Ford (Mississippi)

Stewart, Nausead (Mississippi)

Winfield, James E. (Mississippi)

Yeager, Jerry (Mississippi)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Jolly, E. Grady (Mississippi)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document
14

Docket

Nov. 15, 2009 Docket

Docket [PACER]

United States v. State of Mississippi

April 24, 2020 Docket

Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

476 F.2d 941

April 11, 1973 Order/Opinion

Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

499 F.2d 425

April 23, 1974 Order/Opinion

Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

567 F.2d 1276

Feb. 1, 1978 Order/Opinion

Memorandum Opinion and Order

622 F.Supp. 622

Oct. 21, 1985 Order/Opinion

Opinion

United States of America v. Pittman by Pittman

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

808 F.2d 385

Jan. 12, 1987 Order/Opinion

Memorandum Opinion and Order

719 F.Supp. 1364

July 27, 1989 Order/Opinion

Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

921 F.2d 604

Jan. 22, 1991 Order/Opinion

Opinion

Gardner v. School Board Caddo Parish

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

958 F.2d 111

April 14, 1992 Order/Opinion

Resources

Title Description External URL

The Segregation Academy and the Law

Anthony M. Champagne

A case study of one private school which functions as a segregation academy'' was done in order to learn more about what segregation academies are, how they operate, and how they relate to the commun… Dec. 1, 1973 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2966792

The Strange Career of the Civil Rights Division's Commitment to Brown

David L. Norman

May 1, 1984 https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylj/vol93/iss6/1/

Movement-Countermovement Dynamics and the Emergence of New Institutions: The Case of "White Flight" Schools in Mississippi

Kenneth T. Andrews

This article examines the foundation of private segregationist academies that emerged throughout the U.S. South in the wake of court-ordered desegregation. I focus on the state of Mississippi where p… March 1, 2002 https://www.jstor.org/stable/3086461

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7420980/united-states-v-state-of-mississippi/

Last updated May 12, 2022, 8 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link
1

Complaint

July 9, 1970 PACER
14

Restricted Docket Entry (Court Users Only)

July 9, 1970 RECAP

Remark

Aug. 4, 1992 PACER

Set/Reset Hearings

Feb. 12, 2001 PACER
2

Order

Feb. 12, 2001 PACER
3

Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

Dec. 21, 2009 RECAP
4

Memorandum in Support of Motion

2 Exhibit

View on PACER

Dec. 21, 2009 PACER
5

Notice of Appearance

Dec. 21, 2009 PACER
6

Motion for Leave to Appear

Jan. 26, 2010 PACER
7

Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

Jan. 26, 2010 PACER
8

Notice (Other)

2 Envelope

View on PACER

March 4, 2010 PACER
9

Notice (Other)

March 15, 2010 PACER
10

Rule 16(a)Initial Order

March 24, 2010 PACER
11

Response to Motion

April 8, 2010 PACER

Telephonic Case Management Conference

April 8, 2010 PACER

Order

April 9, 2010 PACER
12

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

2 Appendix A

View on PACER

April 13, 2010 PACER

Order on Motion for Leave to Appear

April 13, 2010 PACER
13

Remark

2 Cover Letter

View on PACER

April 20, 2010 PACER
15

Remark

1 Letter

View on PACER

July 9, 2010 PACER
16

Remark

1 Envelope

View on PACER

Oct. 6, 2010 PACER
17

Remark

1 Cover Letter

View on PACER

2 Envelope

View on PACER

Oct. 12, 2010 PACER
18

Remark

1 Envelope

View on PACER

Oct. 15, 2010 PACER
19

Motion to Amend/Correct

Oct. 22, 2010 PACER
20

Order on Motion to Amend/Correct

Oct. 22, 2010 PACER
21

Remark

Dec. 23, 2010 PACER
22

Status Report

March 2, 2011 PACER
23

Remark

1 Envelope

View on PACER

March 9, 2011 PACER
24

Remark

1 Envelope

View on PACER

March 17, 2011 PACER
25

Notice of Appearance

March 21, 2011 PACER
26

Motion to Approve Consent Judgment

1 Appendix Proposed Consent Decree - Part 1

View on PACER

2 Appendix Proposed Consent Decree - Part 2

View on PACER

March 29, 2011 PACER
27

Order of Recusal

March 30, 2011 PACER

Docket Annotation

March 30, 2011 PACER
28

Consent Judgment

1 Appendix 1-4

View on PACER

April 5, 2011 PACER

Order on Motion to Approve Consent Judgment

April 5, 2011 PACER
29

Mail Returned

April 8, 2011 PACER
30

Status Report

May 11, 2011 PACER
31

Notice of Appearance

June 27, 2011 PACER
32

Remark

1 Envelope

View on PACER

Oct. 4, 2011 PACER
33

Remark

1 Envelope

View on PACER

Oct. 6, 2011 PACER
34

Status Report

Oct. 10, 2011 PACER
35

Motion to Alter Judgment

1 Exhibit 1, Letter from Simpson Co. Schools dated 10/27/11

View on PACER

2 Exhibit 2, Letter from Dept. of Justice dated 8/26/11

View on PACER

Nov. 14, 2011 PACER
36

Memorandum in Support of Motion

1 Exhibit Desegregation Order 8/11/70

View on PACER

2 Exhibit Consent Decree 8/29/83

View on PACER

3 Exhibit Memorandum Opinion and Order 7/28/83

View on PACER

4 Exhibit Memorandum Opinion and Order 10/21/05

View on PACER

5 Exhibit Letter from Simpson County Schools 10/27/11

View on PACER

6 Exhibit Letter from Dept. of Justice 8/26/11

View on PACER

Nov. 14, 2011 PACER
37

Status Report

Nov. 18, 2011 PACER
38

Response in Opposition to Motion

1 Exhibit A - Elementary Teacher at Mendenhall Elementary

View on PACER

2 Exhibit B - Business Education Teacher at Magee High

View on PACER

3 Exhibit C - Math Teacher at Magee High

View on PACER

4 Exhibit D - Elementary Teacher at Magee Elementary

View on PACER

5 Exhibit E - Social Studies Teacher at Mendenhall Junior

View on PACER

6 Exhibit F - Instructional Assistant at Simpson Central

View on PACER

7 Exhibit G - Computer Lab Tech at Magee Elementary

View on PACER

8 Exhibit H - Instructional Assistant at Magee Elementary

View on PACER

9 Exhibit I - In-School Suspension Officer at Mendenhall High

View on PACER

10 Exhibit J - Instructional Assistant at Mendenhall Elementary

View on PACER

11 Exhibit K - Master Teacher

View on PACER

12 Exhibit L - Affidavit of Thomas Duncan

View on PACER

Dec. 2, 2011 PACER
39

Status Report

Dec. 5, 2011 PACER
40

Rebuttal

Dec. 9, 2011 PACER
41

Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

1 Exhibit Proposed Consent Order

View on PACER

Dec. 19, 2011 PACER
42

Certificate of Service

Dec. 19, 2011 PACER
43

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

Jan. 3, 2012 PACER
44

Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

1 Exhibit 1 - Order of 4-6-1971

View on PACER

2 Exhibit 2 - Order of 9-3-1971

View on PACER

3 Exhibit 3 - Memo and Order of 4-18-2008

View on PACER

4 Exhibit 4 - Order of 9-18-2008

View on PACER

5 Exhibit 5 - Order of 11-5-2009

View on PACER

Jan. 3, 2012 PACER
45

Memorandum in Support of Motion

Jan. 3, 2012 PACER
46

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

Jan. 3, 2012 PACER
47

Response to Motion

Jan. 4, 2012 PACER
48

Order on Motion to Alter Judgment

Jan. 10, 2012 PACER
49

Status Report

1 Supplement

View on PACER

2 Supplement

View on PACER

3 Supplement

View on PACER

4 Supplement

View on PACER

Feb. 1, 2012 PACER
50

Status Report

March 9, 2012 PACER
51

Status Report

March 12, 2012 PACER
52

Remark

March 12, 2012 PACER
53

Remark

April 19, 2012 PACER
54

Status Report

1 Exhibit

View on PACER

2 Exhibit

View on PACER

3 Exhibit

View on PACER

4 Exhibit

View on PACER

5 Exhibit

View on PACER

6 Exhibit

View on PACER

7 Exhibit

View on PACER

Aug. 11, 2012 PACER

Docket Annotation

Aug. 13, 2012 PACER
55

Notice (Other)

1 Exhibit A - Student Data

View on PACER

2 Exhibit B - Faculty Numbers by School

View on PACER

3 Exhibit C - Teachers and Student Enrollment by School

View on PACER

4 Exhibit D - Certified Central Office Staff

View on PACER

5 Exhibit E - District Employees with Administrative Certification

View on PACER

6 Exhibit F - Analysis of Job Openings

View on PACER

7 Exhibit G - Terminations

View on PACER

8 Exhibit H - DOJ Approved Hires (Certified Staff)

View on PACER

9 Exhibit I - DOJ Approved Hires (Classified Staff)

View on PACER

Oct. 15, 2012 PACER
56

Status Report

Oct. 15, 2012 PACER
57

Status Report

Oct. 15, 2012 PACER
58

Status Report

1 Exhibit

View on PACER

Nov. 26, 2012 PACER
59

Status Report

1 Exhibit

View on PACER

Nov. 26, 2012 PACER
60

Status Report

Nov. 26, 2012 PACER
61

Status Report

Nov. 26, 2012 PACER
62

Status Report

Nov. 26, 2012 PACER
63

Status Report

Nov. 26, 2012 PACER
64

Status Report

Dec. 20, 2012 PACER
65

Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

1 Exhibit 1 - 2005 Memorandum & Order

View on PACER

2 Exhibit 2 - Consent Decree

View on PACER

3 Exhibit 3 - Opinion & Order of Court

View on PACER

4 Exhibit 4 - Desegregation Order

View on PACER

5 Exhibit 5 - Excerpt from Docket Sheet

View on PACER

6 Exhibit 6 part a - Reports

View on PACER

7 Exhibit 6 part b - Reports

View on PACER

8 Exhibit 6 part c - Reports

View on PACER

9 Exhibit 6 part d - Reports

View on PACER

10 Exhibit 6 part e - Reports

View on PACER

11 Exhibit 7 - Web Site Information

View on PACER

12 Exhibit 8 - Correspondence

View on PACER

Jan. 30, 2013 PACER
66

Memorandum in Support of Motion

Jan. 30, 2013 PACER
67

Notice of Appearance

Feb. 6, 2013 PACER
68

Order

Feb. 20, 2013 PACER
69

Notice of Appearance

Feb. 22, 2013 PACER
70

Response in Opposition to Motion

March 1, 2013 PACER
71

Notice of Appearance

March 6, 2013 PACER
72

Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

March 6, 2013 PACER
73

Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

March 8, 2013 PACER

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

March 8, 2013 PACER
74

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

March 12, 2013 PACER
75

Remark

1 letter

View on PACER

March 12, 2013 PACER
76

Notice (Other)

1 Exhibit A - Student Data

View on PACER

2 Exhibit B - Faculty Numbers by School

View on PACER

3 Exhibit C - Teachers and Student Enrollment by School

View on PACER

4 Exhibit D - Certified Central Office Staff

View on PACER

5 Exhibit E - District Employees with Administrative Certification

View on PACER

6 Exhibit F - Certified Hires

View on PACER

7 Exhibit G - Classified Hires

View on PACER

8 Exhibit H - Terminations

View on PACER

March 18, 2013 PACER
77

Reply to Response to Motion

1 Exhibit 1 - 3.9.2011 Email from T. Cummings

View on PACER

March 29, 2013 PACER
78

Response to Motion

April 4, 2013 PACER
79

Order

April 4, 2013 PACER
80

Order

April 4, 2013 PACER
81

Response to Order

April 18, 2013 PACER
82

Response to Order

1 Exhibit A - Simpson County Docket

View on PACER

2 Exhibit B- Little Rock Docket

View on PACER

3 Exhibit C - Little Rock pleading

View on PACER

April 18, 2013 PACER
83

Status Report

April 19, 2013 PACER
84

Response to Memorandum

1 Exhibit A - Cowan opinion

View on PACER

April 23, 2013 PACER
85

Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

April 25, 2013 PACER
86

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

April 30, 2013 PACER
87

Order

May 8, 2013 PACER
88

Response to Order

May 17, 2013 PACER
89

Order

1 Exhibit "A"

View on PACER

May 21, 2013 PACER
90

Status Report

1 Appendix

View on PACER

2 Appendix

View on PACER

Aug. 5, 2013 PACER
91

Status Report

1 Appendix

View on PACER

2 Appendix

View on PACER

Aug. 5, 2013 PACER

State / Territory: Mississippi

Case Type(s):

School Desegregation

Key Dates

Filing Date: July 9, 1970

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

United States of America Department of Justice Civil Rights Division

Plaintiff Type(s):

U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

State of Mississippi, State

Mississippi State Board of Education, State

Defendant Type(s):

Elementary/Secondary School

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Title IV, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000c et seq.

Constitutional Clause(s):

Equal Protection

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 1970 - None

Content of Injunction:

Busing

Develop anti-discrimination policy

Discrimination Prohibition

Hire

Magnet school

Monitoring

Other requirements regarding hiring, promotion, retention

Preliminary relief granted

Recordkeeping

Reporting

Student assignment

Issues

General:

Education

Racial segregation

School/University policies

Discrimination-basis:

Race discrimination

Race:

Black

Type of Facility:

Government-run