Moore v. Louisiana Board of Elementary & Secondary Education
743 F.3d 959
5th Cir.2014Background
- This dispute arose from a 1965 desegregation suit against the Tangipahoa Parish School Board and a 2010 Consent Decree aimed at increasing the proportion of Black teachers and governing hiring procedures.
- In 2012 plaintiffs (parties to the Consent Decree) sought injunctions under the All Writs Act to block two 2012 Louisiana statutes (Act 1 and Act 2) as conflicting with the Consent Decree.
- Act 1 revised teacher-evaluation and discharge standards, allowing “ineffectiveness” findings to suffice for termination, but included an express command to comply with desegregation orders.
- Act 2 created a voucher-like program diverting Minimum Foundation Program (MFP) funds to private schools or other providers, reducing district budgets when students left public schools.
- The district court preliminarily enjoined implementation of both Acts; meanwhile the Louisiana Supreme Court held Act 2 unconstitutional under the state constitution, eliminating the statutory diversion of MFP funds.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit addressed (1) whether claims about Act 2 were moot after the state-court ruling and (2) whether the federal district court had jurisdiction to enjoin state agencies and the Superintendent regarding Act 1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of Act 2 | Act 2 diverts MFP funds, impairing district compliance with the Consent Decree and harming students | State: Act 2 remains subject to federal review / implementation | Moot — Louisiana Supreme Court invalidated Act 2’s diversion; all Act 2 claims must be dismissed and lower injunction vacated |
| Sovereign immunity of BESE & Dept. of Education | Plaintiffs sought injunctions against these agencies to prevent implementation of Acts | State: Agencies are arms of the state and protected by sovereign immunity | Sued agencies equate to suing the state; Eleventh Amendment bars suit; district court lacked jurisdiction over BESE and Dept. defendants |
| Applicability of Ex parte Young to Superintendent White re: Act 1 | Plaintiffs: White can be enjoined because Act 1’s evaluation/discharge scheme may undermine Consent Decree goals and permit discriminatory terminations | State: No showing White will violate federal law by implementing Act 1; Act 1 requires compliance with desegregation orders | Ex parte Young inapplicable absent a showing White will violate federal law; no present or imminent violation shown; injunction against White was an abuse of discretion |
| Abuse of discretion re: preliminary injunction | Plaintiffs relied on All Writs Act and inherent power to protect Consent Decree | State argued injunction unnecessary and barred by sovereign immunity / mootness | Court vacated district injunction and remanded for dismissal of all claims related to Acts 1 & 2 (Act 2 claims moot; injunction against state agencies and against White unsupported) |
Key Cases Cited
- Affiliated Prof'l Home Health Care Agency v. Shalala, 164 F.3d 282 (5th Cir.) (standard of review for injunctions)
- AT & T Commc’ns of Sw., Inc. v. City of Austin, 235 F.3d 241 (5th Cir.) (mootness where challenged ordinance was repealed and fees waived)
- Lebus v. Seafarers’ Int’l Union, 398 F.2d 281 (5th Cir.) (vacatur and dismissal on mootness)
- Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, 521 U.S. 261 (U.S.) (Eleventh Amendment and limits on federal jurisdiction)
- Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (U.S.) (Congress must clearly abrogate state sovereign immunity)
- Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139 (U.S.) (Ex parte Young does not apply to suits against states/agencies)
- Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (U.S.) (narrow exception permitting suits against state officers to enjoin ongoing violations of federal law)
- Hale v. King, 642 F.3d 492 (5th Cir.) (standard for reviewing sovereign-immunity questions)
- Louisiana Fed’n of Teachers v. State of Louisiana, 118 So.3d 1033 (La.) (state supreme court held Act 2 unconstitutional under state constitution, invalidating MFP diversion)