Opinion
Civil Action No. 70-T-3099-N
August 30, 2000
Gloria J. Browne-Marshall, NAACP Legal Defense Fund, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.
Mark Englehart, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis Miles, PC, Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiff.
Kenneth Lamar Thomas, Thomas Means Gillis Seay, PC, Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiff.
Stanley F. Gray and Fred (Sr.) D. Gray, Gray, Langford, Sapp, McGowan, Gray Nathanson, Tuskegee, AL, for Plaintiff.
Valerie L. Acoff, Thomas Means Gillis Seay PC, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiffs.
Solomon S. Seay, Jr., Solomon S. Seay, Jr., P.C., Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiff.
Kenneth E. Vines, U.S. Attorney's Office, Montgomery, AL, for United States of America, Intervenor-Plaintiff.
Jeremiah Glassman, John R. Moore, Isabelle Katz Pinzler, Pauline A. Miller, Kathryn Woodruff, Kathleen S. Devine, Jeanette Lim and Ross E. Wiener, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division Educational Opportunities Section, Washington, DC, for United States of America, Intervenor-Plaintiff.
Kenneth D. Johnson and K. Heshima White, U.S. Department of Justice Educational Opportunities Litigation See Civil Rights Division, Washington, DC, for United States of America, Intervenor-Plaintiff.
Anita S. Hodgkiss, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, Educational Opportunities, Washington, DC, for United States of America, Intervenor-Plaintiff.
Lewis Steiner Hamilton, Greenville, AL, for Butler County of Education, and Superintendent of Education, defendants.
Anita L. Kelly and Michael R. White, Department of Education, Office of General Counsel, Montgomery, AL, for State of Alabama Board of Education, defendant.
Edward A. Hosp, Champ Lyons, Jr., Office of the Governor, Montgomery, Al, for Don Seigleman, defendant.
Kenneth E. Vines, U.S. Attorney's Office, Montgomery, AL, for United States of America, amicus.
John R. Moore, Pauline A. Miller, K. Heshima White and Jeanette Lim, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Educational Opportunities Section, Washington, DC, for United States of America, amicus.
ORDER APPROVING CONSENT DECREE ON STATE-WIDE SPECIAL EDUCATION ISSUE
In an order entered on April 21, 1997, this court reaffirmed that "the parties should now move toward . . . the termination of the litigation."Lee v. Lee County Bd. of Educ., 963 F. Supp. 1122, 1124 (M.D. Ala. 1997) (citation omitted). The reaffirmation was based on the premise that "local autonomy of school districts is a vital national tradition."Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 490, 112 S.Ct. 1430, 1445 (1992) (quotingDayton Bd. of Educ. v. Brinkman, 433 U.S. 406, 410, 97 S.Ct. 2766, 2770 (1977)). The "court's end purpose must be to remedy the violation and, in addition, to restore state and local authorities to the control of a school system that is operating in compliance with the Constitution."Id. at 489, 112 S.Ct. at 1445. The parties have submitted to the court a proposed consent decree that is "fair, adequate, and reasonable," Pettway v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 576 F.2d 1157, 1169 (5th Cir. 1978),cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1115, 99 S.Ct. 1020 (1979), and is not illegal or against public policy. See United States v. City of Montgomery, Ala., 948 F. Supp. 1533, 1568 (M.D. Ala. 1996). The proposed consent decree on state-wide special education should move this litigation swiftly towards termination as to this issue. The court, therefore, hopes that the State Superintendent of Education and other state officials will vigorously and fully comply with the proposed consent decree so that, at the end of the period outlined in the decree, there will be no doubt whatsoever that the court should terminate this litigation as to special education and finally return to the Alabama State Board of Education the full responsibility of the operation of the state school system as to this issue.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the proposed consent decree on the special education issue is approved.
Furthermore, so that, should any glitches arise in implementing the consent decree, they can be resolved immediately and so that, as a result, this case can end without any complications or delays, it is ORDERED that yearly status conferences are set for the following dates at 8:15 a.m. in chambers at the federal courthouse in Montgomery, Alabama: January 19, 2001; January 11, 2002; January 17, 2003; January 16, 2004; and January 14, 2005.
The status conferences may be conducted by telephone, as long as the united States so notifies the court and other parties at least three days beforehand and the United States then makes appropriate arrangements for the conference to be by telephone.