Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Education / Law and Order / Woods Student Rezoning Case Goes to Trial Today
Posted by Jeff Woods on Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:36 AM
Did school board chairman David Fox openly advocate segregation in community meetings? Did he say, as the plaintiffs' attorneys allege, that we should "put African American students back in north Nashville where they live?"
Did state Rep. Mike Turner use racial terms to urge support for the rezoning plan in a closed-door meeting with Chamber of Commerce and NAACP officials? Did he say, as has been alleged, that "this rezoning plan will put the whites in their neighborhood schools and the blacks in their neighborhood schools, and everybody will be better off?"
Was ousted school superintendent Pedro Garcia telling the truth in explosive memorandums made public last year in which he chronicled a secret white conspiracy involving the chamber and various board members to resegregate schools?
At last report, Garcia still was waffling about testifying, but the plaintiffs plan to present witnesses to tell the court what he told them about all this at the time. There also are witnesses who will claim they heard Fox's and Turner's remarks, which both men deny making.
The trial could last two weeks. The NAACP wants Judge John Nixon to toss out the rezoning plan and order the school system to come up with a new one acceptable to both sides by next summer. Whatever the outcome, the trial will open wounds, with the city torn in two along racial lines over schools once again.
Comments (11)
Showing 1-11 of 11
Just a note: Today is only a hearing for a preliminary injunction -- there's every chance that a preliminary injunction could be denied and that the case could still proceed to trial later (i.e. on the issue of permanent injunctive relief, etc.).
like
dislike
The key issue is "liklihood of success on the merits." If the plaintiffs cant establish that in a week or two of testimony,there likely wont be any more proceedings.
Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive!
Sir Walter Scott
The Scene's "coverage" of this just gets tiresome. The pattern is well established. Woods puts up some loaded post with loaded language like "secret white conspiracy" and "re-segregation" (as if the schools weren't heavily segregated before and won't be just as heavily segregated if the lawsuit prevails). People take pains to point out the problems in Mr. Woods' "reporting." In the end, Woods fails to address these questions, waits a week or two, and then publishes another loaded piece, and it starts all over again.
This isn't a preliminary injunction hearing. This is the whole shebang. If the plaintiffs succeed in making this a class-action and they win, the school board will have to start from scratch.
It really doesn't matter because, as Henry pointed out above (you're both absolutely right), this really is the whole shebang in this particular circumstance. It's extremely unlikely (the phrase "every chance" I used above should have been "still technically a chance") that if the Plaintiffs lose here then there will be another hearing/trial on down the road.
However, technically this is still a hearing on a preliminary injunction (check out the scheduling order of October 7th ("Accordingly the Preliminary Injunction Hearing in this matter is hereby CONTINUED to Tuesday, November 3, 2009, at 10:00 a.m.")) and, as in other cases dealing with injunctions, the legal possibility exists that a preliminary injunction could be denied with further possibility of a permanent injunction later (i.e. "We don't think you have enough of a case to shut things down at this point in time, but on down the line, if you can manage to prove your case, we might still issue a permanent injunction.") It's just that it's extremely unlikely to happen in this situation.
Thanks for the excellent coverage so far -- I think Biggs is full of it -- keep it coming.
As far as I can remember, no one gave a rat's ass about anything that Garcia had to say as he was being run out of town on a rail. Now that his thoughts may be politically useful, all of a sudden he's Mr. Credibility. Whatever.
Well Nashville J, you certainly sound like you know what you're talking about. Be that as it may, the lawyers tell me this is a hearing for a permanent injunction. You recall they already won the temporary injunction. That's why the Spurlock kid is going to Bellevue now.
The October 7, 2009 order of the Court was for a hearing on a preliminary injunction.
Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "the court may advance the trial on the merits and consolidate it with the hearing. Even when consolidation is not ordered, evidence that is received on the motion and that would be admissible at trial becomes part of the trial record and need not be repeated at trial. But the court must preserve any party's right to a jury trial."
The link is here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule65.htm
Henry is correct, it is virtually the whole sheebang because the Court must make a decision based upon the judge's analysis of the likelihood of success on the merits at the final hearing. Additionally, Rule 65 provides for the Court to use the proceeding as a part of the final trial, or the trial itself. In this case the Plaintiffs did not demand a jury, so it could be the final hearing if the judge so orders.
