# Opposition Brief — Arkansas State Board of Education v. Little Rock School District

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385019_1916%3A3

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Opposition Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 1988
- **Citation:** 488 U.S. 869

## Text

a

ms Supreme Court, U.S.
es, FILED

JUL 8 1988
No. 87-2085 wacn i
JOSEPH F, SPANIOL
She
In The

Supreme Court of the United States

October Term, 1987

ra’
<Deses

ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL.,

Petitioners,

V.

LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.,
Respondents.

i
ws

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

ray
. Seles

BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

4.
Vv

RicHarp W. RoacHELL
MITCHELL and ROACHELL
1014 West Third Street

P. O. Box 1510

Little Rock, AR 72203-1510
501-378-7870

Counsel for Respondents
Knight, et al., Intervenors

COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO., (800) 225-6964
or call collect (402) 342-2831

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

I

WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS CORRECTLY
DIRECTED THE STATE TO FUND PART OF A LO-
CAL SCHOOL DISTRICT’S DESEGREGATION REM-
EDY WHEN THE STATE WAS ORIGINALLY FOUND
TO BE A CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATOR.

II

WHETHER THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT CORRECTLY
REQUIRED THE STATE TO FUND VARIOUS COM-
PENSATORY AND REMEDIAL EDUCATION PRO-
GRAMS FOR THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIS-
TRICT.

Iii

WHETHER THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT’S IMPOSITION
OF FUNDING REMEDIAL AND COMPENSATORY
EDUCATION PROGRAMS UPON THE STATE IS A
REASONABLE REMEDY CONSISTENT WITH THE
SCOPE OF THE STATE’S CONSTITUTIONAL VIO-
LATION.

il

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Questions Presented
Table of Contents

Table of Authorities

Reasons for Denying the Writ

Conclusion

lil
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Kelley v. Board of Ed. of Nashville and Davidson
County, 836 F.2d 986 (6th Cir. 1987)

Little Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski County Special
School Dist., 778 F.2d 404 (8th Cir. 1985) oo

Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267 (1977)

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Ed.,
402 U.S. 1, 16 (1971)

REASONS FOR DENYING THE WRIT

The State asserts that the Eighth Circuit’s directive
to it is merely to pay money. This overlooks the initial
district court and Court of Appeals’ findings that the
State was a primary constitutional wrongdoer with deseg-
regative obligations both financial and otherwise. Little
Rock School Dist. v. Pulaski County Special School Dist.,
778 F.2d 404, 411-17, 423, 426, 433, 436 (8th Cir. 1985).

The Court of Appeals’ decision does not conflict with
the recent Sixth Circuit decision in Kelley v. Board of Ed.
of Nashville and Davidson County, 836 F.2d 986 (6th Cir.
1987). There the state was brought in by a third party
action after liability had been assessed against the county.
Here the State was an initial party found by the court
to have contributed to segregation. Pursuant to Milliken
v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267 (1977), the State of Arkansas was
required to spend money ancillary to its obligation to end
segregation. There is no conflict among the circuits by the
Eighth Circuit’s decision here and Kelley.

Nor is there a conflict on the issue of the local dis-
trict’s ability to pay the costs of desegregation. The dis-
tinction, again, is that the State here is a constitutional
violator. In Kelley, the State of Tennessee was added
merely to obtain benefit of its ‘‘deep pocket’’. No liability
determination was made against the State of Tennessee in
Kelley.

Moreover, a segregation victim’s (Little Rock School
District) ability to pay for its own remediation is not rel-
evant. It is the responsibilit: of the constitutional vio-
lator to pay the costs of remedying its segregative wrongs.

The State correctly points out that the nature of a
desegregation remedy is determined by the nature of the
constitutional violation, citing Milliken, 433 U.S. at 280,
and Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Ed., 402
U.S. 1, 16 (1971). The Eighth Circuit’s requirement that
the state pay for compensatory and remedial education
programs is consistent with the State’s constitutional vio-
lation. The violation has not been cured, hence the State’s
obligation continues. The Eighth Circuit has not depart-
ed from the law of the case and there is no call for an
exercise of this Court’s supervisory power.

CONCLUSION

The Eighth Cireuit’s decision presents no conflict
among the circuits in school desegregation cases. Nor
does this case possess any important issues justifying this
Court’s consideration. The Petition for a Writ of Cer-
tiorari should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

Ricuarp W. RoacHeii
MITCHELL and ROACHELL
1014 West Third Street

P. O. Box 1510

Little Rock, AR 72203-1510
501-378-7870

Knight, et al., Intervenors

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385019_1916%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.