University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
view search results
page permalink
Case Name U.S. v. Matthews SD-TX-0008
Docket / Court 6:04-cv-00291-LED ( E.D. Tex. )
Additional Docket(s) 6:62-cv-3095  [ 62-3095 ]
State/Territory Texas
Case Type(s) School Desegregation
Attorney Organization U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Case Summary
In 1962, a lawsuit was filed against the Longview Independent School District (LISD) in the the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The suit later resulted in a 1970 desegregation order, which created attendance zones and provided for transportation of students to ... read more >
In 1962, a lawsuit was filed against the Longview Independent School District (LISD) in the the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The suit later resulted in a 1970 desegregation order, which created attendance zones and provided for transportation of students to schools to achieve racial balancing as well as a majority-to-minority transfer program. There is very little additional information as to the details of that lawsuit or the content of the order.

On June 25, 2004, the United States (the plaintiff-intervenor) and the LISD submitted a joint motion to amend the 1970 order to allow for the creation of magnet schools in the district. According to the motion, since the creation of the 1970 order, the total enrollment of the district had gone down, along with the enrollment of white students, while percentages of African American and Hispanic students enrolled had increased. The parties stated that the magnet school program would alleviate burdens on African American students being bused long distances to other schools and would attract students to the district. The magnet schools would have an attendance zone from which students could automatically enroll, with the rest of the capacity filled by lottery. On July 15, 2004, the Court (Judge Leonard Davis) approved the joint motion.

On August 4, 2008, the Court issued a consent order approving the parties' joint proposal to close one of the elementary schools in the district. The school was being closed in conjunction with an overall adjustment of the district prompted by the district receiving funding to construct eight new schools and renovate two existing elementary schools. The Court also enjoined the LISD from making any transfers of students that were not part of the majority-to-minority plan allowed by the 1970 order, as the district had been making transfers for other reasons that had a negative impact on racial balances in the schools.

On December 17, 2010, the parties submitted a joint motion to modify the desegregation order to allow amended school zones, which became necessary with the construction of new schools, and to amend transfer requirements to allow, in addition to majority-to-minority transfer requirements, three sorts of transfers: transfers for students whose parents or guardians work in the school to which they want to be transferred, transfers out of a school that is failing to make No Child Left Behind annual yearly progress goals, and transfers for students with special needs. The joint motion also specified that the district would continue desegregation efforts in staff and faculty and would make annual reports. On January 24, 2011, the Court approved the parties' plan.

On February 27, 2014, the parties submitted a joint motion for declaration of partial unitary status, stipulating that the school district had fulfilled the 1970 order and achieved unitary status in the areas of: facilities and resource allocation, transportation, extracurricular activities, and staff assignment. The Court approved the motion on February 28, 2014.

On September 19, 2014, the Court granted a motion to extend deadlines for discovery related to declaring unitary status, but set a hearing date of December 17, 2014, if the parties could not resolve the dispute before that date. The hearing date was cancelled, as the parties submitted a joint motion for the court to approve a consent judgment on December 22, 2014, which the court approved on that same date. The consent judgment included requirements for publicizing the LISD's magnet school's admissions process, provisions concerning student assignments and intra-district student transfers, provisions concerning the availability and monitoring of pre-advanced placement classes and the gifted-and-talented program, provisions for monitoring faculty assignments, and annual reporting requirements. The LISD was required to file annual status reports with the court. The term of the consent degree was for three years, at which point the LISD could file a motion for a declaration of full unitary status provided that there would be no outstanding disputes pending before the court.

On April 12, 2017, the LISD filed a motion to modify the final consent decree with a proposed magnet-program expansion plan, which would make the LISD eligible for a grant of up to fifteen million dollars from the United States Department of Education’s Magnet Schools Assistance program. The United States did not oppose the LISD's motion. On May 18, 2017, the court granted the LISD's motion, thus permitting the LISD to implement new magnet and/or charter programs at specified schools.

The LISD submitted three annual status reports. On January 31, 2018, the parties filed a joint motion for a declaratory judgment of unitary status. On June 15, 2018, the court granted the parties' motion, finding that the school district had (1) fully and satisfactorily complied with the court’s desegregation orders for a reasonable period of time; (2) eliminated the vestiges of its past de jure discrimination to the extent practicable; and (3) demonstrated a good faith commitment to the whole of the court’s order and to those provisions of the law and the Constitution that were the predicate for judicial intervention in the first instance. The court thus dismissed the case on June 19, 2018. The case is now closed.

Claire Lally - 12/01/2014
Eva Richardson - 05/27/2019


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Content of Injunction
Busing
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Discrimination Prohibition
Magnet school
Monitoring
Recordkeeping
Reporting
Student assignment
Training
Defendant-type
Elementary/Secondary School
Discrimination-area
Zoning
Discrimination-basis
Race discrimination
General
Buildings
Education
Racial segregation
School/University Facilities
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Transportation
Plaintiff Type
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Race
Black
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action Title IV, Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000c et seq.
Defendant(s) City of Longview
Plaintiff Description Plaintiff-intervenor is the United States
Indexed Lawyer Organizations U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division
Class action status sought Unknown
Class action status granted Unknown
Filed Pro Se Unknown
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2014 - 2018
Filing Year 2004
Case Closing Year 2018
Case Ongoing No
Docket(s)
6:04-cv-291 (E.D. Tex.)
SD-TX-0008-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/19/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Joint Motion to Amend Desegregation Order [ECF# 1]
SD-TX-0008-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/25/2004
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Consent Order [ECF# 20] (E.D. Tex.)
SD-TX-0008-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/04/2008
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Joint Motion to Modify Desegregation Order [ECF# 39]
SD-TX-0008-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/17/2010
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Consent Order [Concerning Modifications to the Desegregation Order] [ECF# 42] (E.D. Tex.)
SD-TX-0008-0007.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/24/2011
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Joint Proposed Discovery & Briefing Schedule [ECF# 60]
SD-TX-0008-0001.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 07/10/2013
Joint Motion for Declaration of Partial Unitary Status [ECF# 70]
SD-TX-0008-0005.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/27/2014
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Agreed Order for Declaration of Partial Unitary Status and Partial Dismissal [ECF# 71] (E.D. Tex.)
SD-TX-0008-0008.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/28/2014
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Final Consent Decree [ECF# 81]
SD-TX-0008-0009.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/22/2014
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendant Longview Independent School District's Motion to Expedite Consideration of Motion to Modify Final Consent Decree [ECF# 85]
SD-TX-0008-0010.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/09/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 87] (E.D. Tex.)
SD-TX-0008-0011.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/18/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Joint Motion for Declaration of Unitary Status [ECF# 89]
SD-TX-0008-0012.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/31/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 90] (E.D. Tex.)
SD-TX-0008-0013.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/15/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Final Judgment [ECF# 91] (E.D. Tex.)
SD-TX-0008-0014.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/19/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
show all people docs
Judges Davis, Leonard E. (E.D. Tex.) show/hide docs
SD-TX-0008-0003 | SD-TX-0008-0007 | SD-TX-0008-0008 | SD-TX-0008-0009
Schroeder, Robert William III (E.D. Tex.) show/hide docs
SD-TX-0008-0011 | SD-TX-0008-0013 | SD-TX-0008-0014 | SD-TX-0008-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Acosta, R. Alexander (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
SD-TX-0008-0002
Becker, Grace Chung (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
SD-TX-0008-0003
Berman, Amy I. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
SD-TX-0008-0003 | SD-TX-0008-0004 | SD-TX-0008-0007
Bhargava, Anurima (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
SD-TX-0008-0001 | SD-TX-0008-0005 | SD-TX-0008-0009
Cogar, Andrew R. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
SD-TX-0008-9000
Dann, Mark (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
SD-TX-0008-0001 | SD-TX-0008-0003 | SD-TX-0008-0004 | SD-TX-0008-0005 | SD-TX-0008-0007 | SD-TX-0008-0009 | SD-TX-0008-0012 | SD-TX-0008-9000
Gupta, Vanita (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
SD-TX-0008-0009
Guzman, Javier M (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
SD-TX-0008-9000
Moore, John R. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
SD-TX-0008-0004 | SD-TX-0008-0007
Perez, Thomas E. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
SD-TX-0008-0001 | SD-TX-0008-0004 | SD-TX-0008-0007
Rogers, Laura Kym Davis (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
SD-TX-0008-0002 | SD-TX-0008-9000
Samuels, Jocelyn (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
SD-TX-0008-0005
Defendant's Lawyers Frels, Kelly (Texas) show/hide docs
SD-TX-0008-0002 | SD-TX-0008-0003 | SD-TX-0008-9000
Haddock, Sheila (Texas) show/hide docs
SD-TX-0008-0004 | SD-TX-0008-0007
Hardy, John Michael (Texas) show/hide docs
SD-TX-0008-9000
McBride, Lisa (Texas) show/hide docs
SD-TX-0008-0002 | SD-TX-0008-0003 | SD-TX-0008-9000
Morris, Richard A. (Texas) show/hide docs
SD-TX-0008-0001 | SD-TX-0008-0004 | SD-TX-0008-0005 | SD-TX-0008-0007 | SD-TX-0008-0009 | SD-TX-0008-0010 | SD-TX-0008-0012 | SD-TX-0008-9000
Wagoner, Nicholas J. (Texas) show/hide docs
SD-TX-0008-0001 | SD-TX-0008-0005 | SD-TX-0008-0009 | SD-TX-0008-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
view search results
page permalink

- top of page -