DISCLAIMER: Any unofficial case summaries below are prepared by the clerk's office
as a courtesy to the reader. They are not part of the opinion of the court.
143746P.pdf 08/31/2015 Heath Adkisson, et al v. Blytheville School District #5
U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 14-3746
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Jonesboro
[PUBLISHED] [[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.