Shelby County Board Of Education v. Memphis City Board of Education et al

Filing 533

ORDER. Signed by Judge Samuel H. Mays, Jr on 08/14/2013.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SHELBY
COUNTY, TENNESSEE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,
v.
MEMPHIS CITY BOARD OF
EDUCATION, et al.,

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 11-2101

ORDER

On June 26, 2012, Defendant/Counterclaimant Board of County
Commissioners of Shelby County, Tennessee (the “Shelby County
Commission”)
relief,

filed

permanent

expedited hearing.
alleged

that

a

Third-Party

Complaint

for

and

preliminary

injunctive

relief,

(ECF No. 288.)

Chapter

905

declaratory
and

an

The Shelby County Commission

(“Chapter

905”)

and

Chapter

970

(“Chapter 970”) of the Tennessee Public Acts of 2012 and Chapter
1, Section 3 (“Chapter 1”) of the Tennessee Public Acts of 2011
violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the
United

States

and

Article

11,

Sections

Constitution of the State of Tennessee.

8

and

9

of

the

In an Order on November 27, 2012 (the “November 27 Order”),
the Court voided Chapter 905 of the Tennessee Public Acts of
2012

as unconstitutional

Tennessee

Constitution

under

Article

because

Chapter

XI,

Section

905

was

applicable only to Shelby County, Tennessee.
Order

64,

ECF

No.

459.)

The

November

27

9

of

the

effectively

(Nov. 27, 2012
Order

voided

all

actions taken under Chapter 905 and enjoined any actions taken
under

Chapter

905

Shelby County.
or Chapter 1.

to

(Id.)

establish

municipal

school

systems

in

The Court did not opine as to Chapter 970

On April 24, 2013, Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam

signed Public Chapter 256 (“Chapter 256”), which, among other
things,

deleted

prohibiting

Tenn.

the

Code

establishment

Ann.
of

§

6-58-112(b),

municipal

the

school

section

systems

in

Tennessee.
A “statute passed during the course of litigation may make
unnecessary

a

determination

render a case moot.
v.

Johnson,

344

of

the

former

controversy”

and

Morrison Cafeteria Co. of Nashville, Inc.

F.2d

690,

692

(6th

Cir.

1965)

(citation

omitted); see also Kentucky Right to Life v. Terry, 108 F.3d
637, 644 (6th Cir. 1997) (in a First Amendment case, stating
that “overbreadth challenges to statutes become moot when the
challenged

language

is

effectively

nullified

by

subsequent

statutory amendment”); see also 15-101 Moore’s Federal Practice
§ 101.98 (“When a statute, regulation, or any other type of
2

legislation is passed while litigation is pending, and the new
legislation corrects or cures the condition complained of, the
underlying claim may be rendered moot.”).
The parties are invited to address whether the passage of
Chapter

256

Complaint.
2013.

moots

the

remaining

claims

in

the

Third-Party

Submissions should be filed no later than August 23,

Responses to the submissions should be filed no later

than August 30, 2013.
So ordered this 14th day of August, 2013.

s/ Samuel H. Mays, Jr.________
SAMUEL H. MAYS, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3