The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
JOYCE MARIE MOORE, ET AL CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS NO. 65-15556
TANGIPAHOA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD SECTION: “B”(1)
OPINION
Due to the Court’s prior acknowledgment unanticipated impact
of the change to its order at Rec. Doc. 876 at page 14, relative
to athletic eligibility of certain student transfers, and no
objection to that particular change from any of the attorneys for
plaintiffs at the time of its proposal to the Court, the Court
adopted a change to such transfers at Rec. Doc. 1630-1 at page 6
and Rec. Doc. 1722 at pages 1 and 7. That court-ordered change was
later shown and found, in part, by this Court to potentially have
a “chilling effect upon achieving student assignment improvements
and final unitary status” in the latter regards. Rec. Doc. 1722 at
3; Rec. Doc. 1744.
Parties were invited to review and propose any objections to
the Court’s expressed intentions to reinstate the order at Rec.
Doc. 876 at page 14, relative to athletic eligibility of certain
student transfers. No timely objections were received. The school
system proposed changes, and plaintiff’s litigation counsel asked
for monetary compensation for a particular student and for others
who might be similarly situated. The latter request was based on
counsel’s unfounded belief that the school system, acting under an
existing court order, violated the student’s unspecified rights
under the Fourteenth Amendment when a third party (the Louisiana
High School Athletic Association, “LHSAA”) denied the student
eligibility to play basketball after transferring to a pertinent
school. Rec. Doc. 1745; Rec. Doc. 1747. Litigation counsel for
plaintiffs also wrongfully and unprofessionally accuses
settlement counsel with responsibility for the forementioned
denial of eligibility by the LHSAA. It is clear that the LHSAA’s
actions were not a violation of the order that was existing at the
pertinent time. Moreover, after becoming aware of the eligibility
matter near the end of the basketball season, immediate action was
taken by the Court that ultimately allowed the affected student to
play in the championship game by vacating its order that initially
prevented the student from participation in his chosen sport
activity.
Where there are unintended consequences of a court order, the
issuing court has broad discretion and inherent authority to make
appropriate corrective modifications to the previous order to
prevent injustice. See League of United Latin Am. Citizens, Dist.
19 v. City of Boerne, 659 F.3d 421, 436 (5th Cir. 2011) (internal
quotations and citations omitted) (“[T]he Supreme Court and our
court have stated that federal courts have inherent equitable power
to modify their own decrees, including consent decrees . . . . A
continuing decree of injunction directed to events to come is
subject always to adaptation as events may shape the need.”); see
also Moore v. Tangipahoa Parish Sch. Bd., 864 F.3d 401, 406 (5th
Cir. 2017).
The original “basic plan” relative to student athletic
eligibility was adopted by Judge Rubin on July 12, 1967, which
stated:
A student attending school for the first time on
a desegregated basis may not be subject to any
disqualification or waiting period for
participation in activities and programs,
including athletics, which might otherwise apply
because he is a transfer or newly assigned
student except that such transferees shall be
subject to longstanding, non-racially based
rules of city, county, or stat athletic
associations dealing with the eligibility of
transfer students for athletic contests.
See United States v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. Of Educ., 380 F.2d 385,
393 (1967); Rec. Doc. 22 at 7 (adopting the Fifth Circuit language)
(Emphasis added). Thereafter, on July 2, 1969, Judge Rubin adopted
the “basic [desegregation] plan proposed by Tangipahoa Parish
School System, subject to modifications constitutionally
required.” See Rec. Doc. 83; Rec. Doc. 84. The plan contained the
following language:
No student shall be prevented from participating
in athletic contests, or any other activity,
conducted or sponsored by the Tangipahoa School
System as a result of changes in school or class
assignment made to effect this Order.
On July 7, 2008, Arlene K. Guerin, the Court Compliance
Officer (“CCO”) at that time, requested adoption of interim
procedures for majority to minority transfers. See Rec. Doc. 684.
The proposed policy stated that:
Majority-to-minority transfer students,
regardless of grade level at the time of
transfer, shall be eligible to participate in
all interscholastic athletic programs governed
by the Louisiana High School Athletic
Association in the year of initial transfer
except those for which a competitive season is
in progress. Majority-to-minority students
electing to return to their home attendance zone
school shall be immediately eligible in all
interscholastic athletic programs governed by
the Louisiana High School Athletic Association
except those for which a competitive season is
in progress.
Rec. Doc. 684-1 at 3-4. The Court granted the CCO’s motion on July
9, 2008 adopting the foregoing policy. See Rec. Doc. 690.1
Therefore, considering parties’ responses to our order at
record documents 1722 and 1774, the record and applicable law,
IT IS ORDERED that the athletic eligibility provision of the
desegregation order is amended as follows:
High school interscholastic athletic eligibility shall be
governed by rules of the Louisiana High School Athletic Association
with the following exceptions:
1 There were further court-ordered modifications concerning athletic eligibility issues. See e.g., Record Documents
876 at 14; superseding consent order 1264 at 9-10; 1630-1 at 6; 1722 at 7.
(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.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 13th day of April, 2023
___________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE