Moore et al v. Tangipahoa Parish School Board et al

Filing 1748

OPINION: IT IS ORDERED that the athletic eligibility provision of the desegregation order is amended as stated herein. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 4/13/2023.(pp)

Case 2:65-cv-15556-ILRL-JVM Document 1748 Filed 04/13/23 Page 1 of 5

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
1

Case 2:65-cv-15556-ILRL-JVM Document 1748 Filed 04/13/23 Page 2 of 5

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

settlement

counsel

wrongfully
with

and

unprofessionally

responsibility

denial of eligibility by the LHSAA.

for

the

accuses

forementioned

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
2

Case 2:65-cv-15556-ILRL-JVM Document 1748 Filed 04/13/23 Page 3 of 5

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.
3

Case 2:65-cv-15556-ILRL-JVM Document 1748 Filed 04/13/23 Page 4 of 5

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:

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.

1

4

Case 2:65-cv-15556-ILRL-JVM Document 1748 Filed 04/13/23 Page 5 of 5

(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

5