The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
ANTHONY T. LEE, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff-Intervenor )
and Amicus Curiae, )
)
and NATIONAL EDUCATION )
ASSOCIATION, INC., )
)
Plaintiff-Intervenor, )
)
v. ) CASE NO. 3:70-CV-844-WKW
) [WO]
CHAMBERS COUNTY BOARD )
OF EDUCATION, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
On August 22, 1963, Judge Frank Minis Johnson, Jr., issued an order
permitting Anthony T. Lee, the original plaintiff in this action, to fight against
segregation in Macon County on behalf of all “Negro children, living and residing
in various areas of Macon County, Alabama.” Lee v. Macon Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 221
F. Supp. 297, 298 (M.D. Ala. 1963). By virtue of this order, Mr. Lee’s attorneys
were appointed to represent all of these children in Macon County.
Since that 1963 order, this case has morphed to cover a different county, a
different generation of children, and a different set of facts and circumstances. But
the attorneys have remained. Today, Mr. Lee’s attorneys are the court-appointed
representatives for the Black students and their parents/guardians in the Chambers
County school district.
Chambers County sits on the Alabama-Georgia border and has a population
of just over 32,000. The Chambers County school district covers most of the county,
only with the exception of the City of Lanett, which has maintained a separate school
district since 1898. The county school system serves approximately 3,270 students.
The northern and western portions of the county are divided from the southeastern
corner of the county in many ways—by an interstate highway, cultural differences,
demographics, and even a time zone line.1 While the divisions are not
insurmountable, they are a very real part of the county’s politics.
1 In the Standard Time Act of 1918, Congress placed the entire state of Alabama in the
Central Time Zone. Nonetheless, some communities on the Alabama side of the Georgia-Alabama
border remained in the Eastern Time Zone to accommodate local industry—specifically for
Chambers County, to accommodate local textile mills. Today, the textile mills are gone, but the
de facto use of Eastern Time has persisted, and it has created significant problems for the
communities in Chambers County. For the schools, hardship has been created when parents work
in a time zone different from the one in which their children attend school, when two children in a
family attend school in different time zones, or when buses must service two time zones on one
route.
The problems, of course, are not limited to the schools. Because the use appears to be
unofficial, there is no clear line demarcating the boundary between Eastern Time and Central Time
in Chambers County. Some identify only the cities of Valley and Lanett as using Eastern Time
(along with other towns in other border counties). See Kelly Kazek, Do You Know Which Alabama
Towns Are in a Different Time Zone?, AL.com (February 6, 2017), https://www.al.com/living/
The responsibility to represent all the students and parents/guardians in a
county is immense and complicated. But some aspects are simple. One simple fact
that applies to every lawyer-client relationship is the fact that the words of a lawyer
can bind his or her client—even a client as amorphous as the plaintiffs here.
On May 19, 2022, after years of negotiations and extensive meetings, all the
parties in this sixty-year-old case filed a joint motion to approve a proposed consent
order. The motion stated that: “The Parties agree that the attached Proposed Consent
Order . . . will reasonably ensure that, if fully implemented, the District will
eliminate the vestiges of de jure segregation . . . and will provide equal educational
opportunities to all of the students enrolled in the District.” (Doc. # 480 at 3.) The
motion was signed by counsel for all the parties, including counsel for the Black
students and parents/guardians, who today are represented by Stanley F. Gray and
GeDá Jones Herbert. (Doc. # 480 at 7.)
The agreement submitted by the parties detailed several important changes to
be made to the Chambers County school system, including the consolidation of the
two high schools in the system; the establishment of a magnet school to primarily
serve the northern and western reaches of the county; the closure of three schools in
2017/02/do_you_know_which_alabama_town.html. At the public hearing on June 30, 2022, the
court learned that other surrounding communities, such as Hugeley, also operate by Eastern Time.
Because of the lack of clarity, law enforcement, ambulances, and hospitals face significant issues
when trying to keep proper records.
various parts of the county; and the establishment of a desegregation advisory
committee.
Counsel for all parties signed this agreement. Counsel for all parties bound
their clients to the terms of this agreement. Counsel for all parties bound their clients
to the conclusion that the terms of this agreement will, “if fully implemented, . . .
eliminate the vestiges of de jure segregation.” (Doc. # 480 at 3.)
On the following day, May 20, 2022, counsel for the Black students and
parents/guardians issued a press release, saying that the attorneys were “happy to
report” the terms of the agreement, and that the proposal “addresses the many
concerns our clients raised.” NAACP Legal Defense Fund, LDF Issues Statement
on New Consent Decree in Chambers County Desegregation Case, (May 20, 2022),
https://www.naacpldf.org/wp-content/uploads/PR-Chambers-Co-consent-decree-
FINAL_4-1.pdf.
Two weeks passed. And two weeks, it seems, can change everything. On
June 2, 2022, counsel for the Black students and parents/guardians filed a motion
styled as a “Motion for Status Conference.” (Doc. # 481.) In the motion, counsel
stated that “members of the class have asserted opposition to the proposed closure
or consolidation of schools under the proposal.” (Doc. # 481 at 2.) A subsequent
filing identified the general points of opposition that counsel had received from
members of the class, including opposition to the proposal for consolidation of the
high schools and opposition to the closure of other schools. (Doc. # 483.)
The court, after discussing the proposal with counsel and considering the
scope of the order, declined to approve the plan in full for the 2022–23 school year.
(Doc. # 487.) Specifically, the court was concerned with the lack of detail regarding
funding, location, and logistics for the proposed consolidated high school, and
certain aspects of the plan to temporarily send all high school students to one of the
two existing campuses.
To be clear, when the details are finalized and approved, consolidation of the
two high schools will be ordered and monitored. The court ordered generally the
consolidation of these schools decades ago. The Board does not need further
approval to pursue consolidation of these schools. But what the Board must do is
provide further details regarding the consolidation and time for a full and fair
opportunity for the public to comment on those details in a federal courtroom. That
simply is not possible on the timeline proposed by the parties.
Consequently, on June 16, 2022, the court entered an order deferring
consideration of the total plan until a later date. (Doc. # 485.) But although the high
school consolidation was not possible before the new school year, the court did
indicate that it would accept a motion for immediate relief, seeking approval of one
or more components of the proposed order, such as school closures. (Doc. # 485 at
2.) The Board filed such a motion, requesting permission to take four measures
before the start of the new school year:
1. The Board seeks permission to close Five Points School and transfer
those students to Eastside Elementary School.
2. The Board seeks permission to close J.P. Powell Middle School and
transfer those students to Eastside Elementary School.
3. The Board seeks permission to transition Eastside Elementary School
to a magnet school and to permit the enrollment of sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-grade
children at the school.
4. The Board seeks permission to close Lafayette-Lanier Elementary
School and transfer those students to another school in the local area.
Each item requested by the Board was part of the consent order proposed by
the parties.2 Counsel for the students and parents/guardians consented to these
items—and, further, agreed that these items would aid in achieving unitary status in
the Chambers County school system. But counsel now reports that their clients
“object to the closure of any school.” (Doc. # 486 at 6.)
2 (Doc. # 480-1 at 7 (“The District will close J.P. Powell Middle School and Five Points
School at the end of the 2021-22 school year and all students zoned for Eastside Elementary
School, J.P. Powell Middle School, and Five Points School will be assigned to the STEAM
Academy”); Doc. # 480-1 at 7 (“The STEAM Academy will be located initially at the current
Eastside Elementary School facility . . . .”); Doc. # 480-1 at 8 (“The District will close LaFayette
Lanier Elementary School at the end of the 2021-22 school year, and all students zoned for
Lafayette Lanier Elementary School will be assigned to Fairfax Elementary School effective
beginning with the 2022-23 school year.”).)
To provide a full and fair process before taking action on the motion, the court
solicited comments from the public and held a public hearing on June 30, 2022.
Significant comment was received both orally and in writing. The court provided
an opportunity for a representative of the Board to respond to the public comment,
and counsel for all parties were allowed to explain their positions and provide any
legal argument on the motion.
Many concerns were raised with the plan—from bullying among students, to
driving times for school pickups, to the loss of close-knit school communities.
Heartfelt and passionate pleas were made on both sides.
The United States government, which intervened in this case in support of Mr.
Lee and the Black children many years ago, also signed the May 19, 2022 proposal.
Consistent with its statements in the original proposal, the United States has
informed the court that it does not oppose the school closures that the Board now
requests. (Doc. # 486 at 6.)
Now the matter has been submitted to this court for a decision. A federal
court’s role in this process is limited. The court does not tell the school board how
to make policy decisions, and the court cannot be a roadblock when the school board
seeks to close an underutilized school in favor of offering more educational
opportunities at a larger school, unless the school board somehow acts in an
unconstitutional manner. See Harris ex rel. Harris v. Crenshaw Cnty. Bd. of Educ.,
968 F.2d 1090, 1095 (11th Cir. 1992). Instead, the court’s role is to ensure that the
plan is not racially motivated and that Black students do not bear a disproportionate
burden under the plan. Id. at 1097.
Having considered the objections from the public and their attorneys, the court
first notes that the objections must be overruled as waived. The consent provided
by counsel bound their clients, and the consent included exactly the measures
proposed here.
But second, the court overrules the objections because the concerns raised do
not amount to a violation of the United States Constitution. The best legal argument
offered by the plaintiff class is that most of the changes will occur in the northern
reaches of the county, which is predominantly Black. And since closures entail
disruption, and disruption is a burden, the Black students will bear the burden of
these changes.
However, the facts do not support this objection. Five Points School is
racially balanced, but composed of a majority of white students. No party or attorney
has articulated any argument showing how the closing of Five Points School
disproportionately burdens Black students. Lafayette Lanier Elementary School is
racially balanced. No party or attorney has articulated any argument showing how
the closing of Lafayette Lanier Elementary School disproportionately burdens Black
students. J.P. Powell Middle School is composed of mostly Black students, but these
students will only suffer the disruption of relocating to Eastside Elementary School,
one mile away. No party or attorney has explained how this inconvenience would
be a disproportionate burden when compared to the relocations required by the
closing of Five Points School or Lafayette Lanier Elementary School. Eastside
Elementary School is composed of mostly Black students, but these students will
only suffer the disruption of added students on campus. Schools in Valley will
similarly have to accommodate new students on campus when Lafayette-Lanier
Elementary School is closed. No party or attorney has explained how the disruption
at Eastside will outweigh the disruption at the Valley elementary schools.
Deterioration of the buildings, declining enrollment, and many other factors
have compelled the Board to make a change. Nearly every public comment agreed
that conditions at several of the schools were “deplorable.” There is no evidence
that the Board acted with a racial motivation or that the plan places a
disproportionate burden on Black students. The court sincerely appreciates the
comments from the public and the arguments of counsel, but there is no aspect of
this plan that violates the United States Constitution. Instead, it appears that the
parties, after extensive negotiations, have crafted a well-reasoned plan that should
eventually lead to unitary status and an end to this case when its terms are fully
implemented. The need for more detail and public comment as to some portions of
the plan should not imply any weakness in the fundamental terms of the plan.
Members of the public have raised concerns with how the Board has
conducted itself during this process, taking issue with a lack of transparency and a
premature announcement of school closures.
First, to address transparency: The parties’ agreement lies at an intersection
between modern litigation and representative democracy. In modern litigation, most
cases are resolved through negotiation between parties, which necessarily occurs in
a non-public setting. Even though the Board is accountable to the public of
Chambers County, the United States is accountable to the public of the nation, (and,
though not elected, counsel for the private plaintiffs are accountable to the Black
children of Chambers County and their parents/guardians), negotiations had to occur
without all the constituents present in the room. By the nature of the process, not
every citizen who is or will be impacted by the settlement can be consulted to weigh
in on the particular plan being discussed.
The attorneys, the Board, and the United States face the unenviable and
impossible task of trying to please everyone. But someone has to make a decision—
or else this sixty-year-old case would last for another sixty years. A public hearing
on the initial steps in the overall plan is wise after the fact to ferret out any
unconstitutional result of the negotiation. Here, all parties were ably represented in
the negotiation, and the result complies with those provisions of the Constitution that
required the federal courts’ intervention.
Finally, a legitimate concern was raised with respect to what appears to have
been the premature closing of J.P. Powell Middle School and Five Points School
before court approval had been conferred. While the court does not condone any
violation of its orders, the Board acted reasonably here for two reasons: (1) All
parties had agreed that the schools would be closed and the Board acted in reliance
on that agreement; and (2) in order to effectuate the agreement, steps had to be taken
before the end of the school year, including relocating personnel and equipment.
It is therefore ORDERED:
1. The Motion for Immediate Relief (Doc. # 486) is GRANTED;
2. Five Points School, J.P. Powell Middle School, and Lafayette-Lanier
Elementary School may be closed immediately;
3. Eastside Elementary School may be converted to a magnet school, and
sixth-, seventh-, and eighth-grade children may be enrolled at the school
immediately; and
4. To the extent that court approval is required, permission is granted to
operate a STEAM program at the Eastside Elementary School campus.
Recognizing that these school closures will begin the transition process
ultimately required to end this case, it is further ORDERED that the Board shall
establish a Desegregation Advisory Committee (“DAC”) consisting of at least
twelve total student and parent representatives from both the Valley and LaFayette
attendance zones. The DAC shall have regular access to the Superintendent and
Board of Education to address the remaining desegregation issues and the progress
of the changes to the District. The DAC shall be composed of three students from
each attendance zone and three parents/guardians from each attendance zone. One
parent member of the DAC shall be selected by the Private Plaintiffs, the remaining
members shall be selected by the Superintendent. The DAC shall meet at least twice
annually until this case as against the Chambers County Board of Education is
closed. The DAC shall provide a summary of each meeting to all parties within
thirty days of each meeting. The Board shall maintain and preserve all DAC meeting
agendas, minutes, exhibits, and transcripts until this case is closed.3
DONE this 5th day of July, 2022.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3 This, too, is language that all parties have agreed to in substance. (Doc. # 480-1 at 2–3.)