United States v. Arkansas Department of Education, No. 19-1340 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
After the school districts sought modification of existing desegregation consent decrees to allow their exemption from Arkansas's Public School Choice Act, Ark. Code. Ann. 6–18–1906, the district court granted the motions and modified the consent decrees to explicitly limit the transfer of students between school districts. The Department appealed, alleging that the modification imposed an impermissible interdistrict remedy.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that there was a substantial change in Arkansas law after the consent decrees were enacted and the district court's modification was not an impermissible interdistrict remedy. The court explained that the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering and crediting evidence of white flight when it determined that a substantial change in circumstances had occurred warranting modification of the consent decrees. Furthermore, based on the court's review of the record and the large degree of deference given to the district court, the court could not find that the district court abused its discretion in modifying the consent decrees.
Court Description: [Erickson, Author, with Melloy and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case - School Desegregation. Certain Arkansas school districts sought modification of existing school desegregation consent decrees to allow their exemption from Arkansas's Public School Choice Act; the district court granted the motions and modified the consent decrees to explicitly limit the transfer of students between districts; the Arkansas Department of Education appealed, alleging the modifications imposed an impermissible interdistrict remedy. Held: because there was a substantial change in Arkansas law and the circumstances in the districts (white flight) after the consent decrees were enacted and because the district court's modification was not an impermissible interdistrict remedy, the district court's order is affirmed. Judge Kobes, dissenting.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on August 25, 2021.
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.