Adkisson v. Blytheville Sch. Dist. #5, No. 14-3746 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseThe 2013 General Public School Choice Act, Ark. Code 6–18–1901 provided that "[a] school district annually may declare an exemption under this section if the school district is subject to the desegregation order or mandate of a federal court or agency remedying the effects of past racial segregation." Plaintiffs have minor children who reside within the Blytheville School District and applied to transfer their children to neighboring school districts. The Blytheville District subsequently adopted a resolution to exempt the District from the Act. Plaintiffs sued, alleging that the District violated their due process and equal protection rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and for violations of the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. The district court granted the District summary judgment. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the District violated due process by abusing its power under state law and failing to provide pre-deprivation process, and violated equal protection by using race as the reason for its exemption and nullifying the 2013 Act within its borders on the pretense that it was subject to a desegregation order. The District at least had a rational basis for believing that it "is subject to the . . . mandate of a federal court or agency."
Court Description: Smith, Author, with Beam and Bye, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Arkansas Public School Choice Act. The 2013 Arkansas Public School Choice Law contained a broad school choice transfer option but gave school districts the ability to claim an exemption from the Act if the district was subject to desegregation order or mandate of a federal court or agency remedying the effects of past racial segregation. Here, plaintiffs are parents of the Blytheville School District and were prevented from sending their children to another district because the District claimed the exemption. Given that the Arkansas General Assembly has stricken the exemption clause at issue in this suit - Sec. 6-18-1906(b)- and that the district has claimed an exemption under the newly added Sec. 6-13-113, the plaintiffs' request for declaratory and injunctive relief, in so far as it pertains to the 2013 Act, is moot; however, plaintiffs could potentially recover money damages for any constitutional violation arising from the School District's alleged violation of the 2013 Act, and that part of their claim is not moot and the court will address plaintiffs' underlying due process and equal protection claims; none of plaintiffs' cited cases establish that a parent's ability to choose where his or her child is educated within the public school system is a fundamental right of liberty; the Act does not create a property interest in exercising public school choice because plaintiffs do not have more than a mere subjective expectancy of school choice under the Act since the receiving nonresident districts retained discretion to accept or reject transfer students, such as plaintiffs' children; plaintiffs failed to prove the district had a disparate purpose in claiming the exemption and strict scrutiny analysis is not required; applying the rational basis test, the district had a rational basis for believing it was subject to a federal court desegregation order or federal agency mandate which it would violate if it failed to claim the exemption. Judge Beam, concurring in part and dissenting in part. [ August 28, 2015
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.