Smith Ex Rel. Smith v. Sch. Bd. of Concordia Parish, 906 F.3d 327

Background

Delta Charter Group (Type 2 charter) sought to open a school in Concordia Parish, which has been under a federal desegregation order since 1970; Louisiana law makes charter schools subject to local court-ordered desegregation plans.
Delta intervened and obtained court permission in 2013 by entering a consent decree obliging it to comply with Concordia's desegregation plan, recruit in African American communities, and maintain enrollment reflecting parish racial demographics; reporting requirements applied if Delta's Black enrollment trailed the district by 10% or more.
Delta opened in 2013–14 with a student body that was overwhelmingly white (15% Black vs. district ~50% Black); similar skew persisted through 2016–17, and Delta failed to submit required analyses explaining the disparity.
The Concordia Parish School Board moved for relief in 2014; after years of discovery and a three-day evidentiary hearing in Feb 2017 the district court found Delta in deliberate noncompliance with the consent decree and that Delta's enrollment practices substantially impacted the district's desegregation efforts.
The district court ordered remedial measures: cap Concordia students at 350 pending improvement, form a diversity committee, require implementation of recommended recruitment measures, and appointed a special master; it also (overbroadly) restricted Delta from enrolling students from other parishes under desegregation orders without permission.
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed enforcement of the consent decree against Delta but vacated the portion of relief extending to other parishes beyond Concordia.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can a court enforce desegregation obligations against a charter school that entered a consent decree?	Board/US: Yes — Delta expressly agreed to be governed by the consent decree and to comply with desegregation obligations.	Delta: No — as an independent Type 2 charter, enforcement is an impermissible interdistrict remedy absent an interdistrict constitutional violation.	Held: Consent decrees are binding; a party that voluntarily agreed to obligations can be held to them without a separate constitutional violation finding.
Was there sufficient factual basis that Delta violated the consent decree and impacted district desegregation?	Board/US: Yes — enrollment and teacher-hiring data, and expert testimony showed Delta disproportionately drew white students/teachers and failed to meet recruitment/reporting obligations.	Delta: Claimed good-faith recruitment and challenged scope of evidence (untimely filings excluded).	Held: District court's factual findings of noncompliance and substantial impact were plausible and not clearly erroneous.
Were the district court's remedies appropriately tailored to enforce the consent decree?	Board/US: Yes — limits, diversity committee, and monitoring enforce Delta's recruitment and anti-impediment obligations.	Delta: Some remedies exceeded court's remedial authority and implicated state-law or interdistrict limits.	Held: Most remedies were within scope of the consent decree and district court's discretion; they enforce Delta's promises.
Did the court exceed its authority by restricting Delta from enrolling students from other parishes under separate desegregation orders?	Board/US: Sought broader relief to prevent interference with other parishes.	Delta: Consent decree concerns only Concordia; court lacked authority to bind other parishes.	Held: Vacated that portion — the consent decree and this case are limited to Concordia Parish; district court exceeded remedial authority.

Key Cases Cited

Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717 (prohibition on interdistrict remedies absent interdistrict violation)
Local No. 93, Int'l Ass'n of Firefighters v. Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501 (consent decrees are voluntary and may provide broader relief)
Frew ex rel. Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431 (scope limits for consent decrees: must resolve dispute within court's jurisdiction and further underlying law)
United States v. Alcoa, Inc., 533 F.3d 278 (district courts must hold parties to consent-decree terms)
Firefighters Local Union No. 1784 v. Stotts, 467 U.S. 561 (scope of a consent decree discerned within its four corners)
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (strict scrutiny for racial balancing in school assignments)
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (remedies addressing historic discrimination must be justified by current conditions)
Wright v. Council of City of Emporia, 407 U.S. 451 (constraints on creating new districts that would impede desegregation)
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (fundamental principle that public education must be nondiscriminatory)