State says rights violated

Show caption
/

Education Department fights federal judge’s order

A federal judge’s order for state officials to defend state voucher program funding and teacher evaluation laws in federal court is unconstitutional, attorneys for the Louisiana Department of Education say.

The order is an intrusion on state decision making, the state says in a brief filed in federal court in New Orleans.

The case involves the Tangipahoa Parish School Board’s argument that a new state law diverting state funds from the school district to voucher programs prevents the district from financially complying with court orders in its 47-year-old federal desegregation case.

The School Board requested an injunction halting implementation in the parish of the challenged provisions.

U.S. District Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle, who oversees the desegregation lawsuit, ordered Education Superintendent John White, the Education Department and the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education to appear in court Nov. 26 to explain why the injunction should not be granted.

Education Department attorneys now say that order violates the 11th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which strictly limits the circumstances in which a state may be sued in federal court.

The attorneys have asked Lemelle either to set aside his prior orders bringing the state into the federal lawsuit or to put the hearing on hold, pending the outcome of a broader state court case scheduled for trial Nov. 28.

The 11th Amendment bars federal courts from telling state officials how to comply with state law, Education Department attorneys Willa R. LeBlanc and Barbara Bell Melton argue in a brief filed Wednesday.

“The amendment is designed to protect the state government’s ability to exercise its sovereign functions without the interference of the judiciary,” the attorneys argue.

Courts also have held that the amendment bars suits that seek to tell the state how to use its money, the attorneys said.

“It would be an unfathomable intrusion into a state’s affairs — and a violation of the most basic notions of federalism — for a federal court to determine the allocation of a state’s financial resources,” the attorneys argue. “The legislative debate over such allocation is uniquely an exercise of state sovereignty.”

Although a state may consent to federal jurisdiction, the state of Louisiana has not done so in this case, the attorneys said.

In addition, the state is already defendant in a state court case in which the constitutionality of the state laws at issue will be determined, the attorneys said.

That state court case, filed by the Louisiana School Boards Association and state teachers unions, is scheduled for trial Nov. 28 in 19th Judicial District Court in Baton Rouge. Its outcome may make the Tangipahoa Parish School Board’s motion for an injunction in the desegregation case moot, the state attorneys argued.

Desegregation plaintiff attorney Nelson Taylor also requested an injunction in the federal case.

Taylor argues that the state’s new regulations for hiring, evaluating and terminating teachers conflict with court orders regarding the recruitment and retention of black teachers in Tangipahoa Parish.

Implementation of those state laws should be halted in the parish until the district achieves unitary status, Taylor said.


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (8)


1) Comment by deutsch29 - 14/11/2012

Remember in the Sixties when states tried to argue that enforcement of federal civil rights mandates violated state rights? How similar this phony, self-serving DOE argument sounds.

2) Comment by CenLamar - 11/11/2012

@AtchafalayaKid You're right, and I'm wrong about the MFP. There's a lot of bad reporting out there on this program, but Tulane's Cowen Center has a really good breakdown of how the program works: http://www.coweninstitute.com/wp- content/uploads/2010/03/SPELA-Funding-and-ARRA.pdf Thanks for calling me out and for the clarification. However, I still think it's ridiculous to argue that this is an 11th Amendment issue; it is completely possible that the program violates federal law, the US Constitution, and the State Constitution, and there is nothing unprecedented about having parallel challenges in state and federal courts.

3) Comment by Warp7 - 10/11/2012

Typical response from the egotistical dictatorship called Jindalism. Federal Judge makes a ruling and these clowns Liam intrusion into states rights. See you in court!

4) Comment by AtchafalayaKid - 10/11/2012

@CenLamar The Minimum Foundation Program is STATE DOLLARS, not federal. The MFP is the formula by which the STATE funds public, and now private, education. (By the way, I am totally against this voucher program but your statement is simply not correct.)

5) Comment by badcomedy - 10/11/2012

So, the criminal regime is basically fighting deseg. because the feds have no right to meddle in the state's affairs, especially because we're such a model for education here? And even though LDOE has several full time lawyers, they need to pay big bucks to contract with more lawyers despite relentless budget cuts to schools? Disgusting.

6) Comment by CenLamar - 10/11/2012

Let's be precise here: The SSEEP (vouchers) is funded entirely by federal dollars (the Minimum Foundation Program). Jindal's attorneys are being completely disingenuous and dishonest about the 11th Amendment, and they're misleading the public on the ways in which this program is funded and attempting to use the red herring of "state's rights" for publicity; it's not a valid legal argument. You can't skirt away a valid federal Constitutional challenge simply because there are also challenges about its state constitutionality. Who do these fools think they're fooling?

7) Comment by LawyerDan65 - 10/11/2012

Bighug - The Tangi School System is under Federal Court desegregation...the question is do the 2 Acts, if imposed, violate the provisions of that desegregation order...The church - stste issue is not really the question.

8) Comment by Bighug - 10/11/2012

I'm lost here. Is the federal court saying it is OK to give state tax money to churches or not? Or does the federal judge think he is so powerful that he can make decisions contrary to the wishes of out state king, Sir Jindal? I'll look at it again after my paper arrives, but those federal judges had better consult with our state king before making decisions in the future.