## Facts

- Ohio enacted Substitute House Bill 269 (H.B. 269), creating “municipal school districts” governed by a mayor-appointed school board rather than an elected board.
- The statutory classification applied to districts previously subject to a federal desegregation order; at enactment, Cleveland was the only qualifying district.
- Cleveland schools had been under federal desegregation orders since the 1970s, with continuing remedial supervision and later a consent decree.
- Plaintiffs (Cleveland voters and taxpayers and the NAACP) challenged H.B. 269, alleging it unconstitutionally removed the right to elect the school board and unlawfully targeted Cleveland given its demographics and desegregation history.
- Plaintiffs sued the State of Ohio and the Mayor of Cleveland, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The district court granted judgment on the pleadings to defendants on all claims, and plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Eleventh Amendment barred federal Equal Protection and state-law claims brought in federal court against the State of Ohio.
2. Whether H.B. 269 violated the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause by treating Cleveland differently from other Ohio school districts or by reflecting purposeful racial discrimination.
3. Whether converting the Cleveland school board from elected to mayor-appointed violated the Voting Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1971).
4. Whether plaintiffs stated viable Ohio constitutional or common-law claims against the Mayor, and whether any such claims could proceed in federal court.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit dismissed the federal Equal Protection and state-law claims against the State of Ohio as barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
- The court otherwise affirmed the judgment on the pleadings for defendants.
- The court held that H.B. 269 did not violate Equal Protection because it was facially neutral, strict scrutiny was not triggered, and the classification survived rational basis review.
- The court rejected the Voting Rights Act claim, concluding that the Act does not guarantee elections for a particular local office and plaintiffs did not show a race-based denial or abridgment of political participation.
- The court affirmed dismissal of Ohio constitutional and common-law challenges asserted against the Mayor.

## Legal Principles

- The Eleventh Amendment generally bars federal-court suits against a state for constitutional and state-law claims absent waiver or valid congressional abrogation; such claims must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction when immunity applies.
- Altering a state-created local governance structure (including replacing an elected board with an appointed one) does not, without more, infringe a fundamental right triggering strict scrutiny under Equal Protection.
- A facially neutral law tied to local conditions is reviewed under rational basis unless plaintiffs plausibly show purposeful discrimination or a suspect classification.
- Equal Protection racial-discrimination claims require proof of discriminatory intent, not merely disparate impact or correlation with racial demographics.
- The Voting Rights Act prohibits race-based denial or abridgment of voting rights but does not require that every governmental position be elective; structural changes are unlawful only if they deny or abridge equal political participation on account of race.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit left H.B. 269 in place, dismissing claims against Ohio on Eleventh Amendment grounds and holding that Cleveland’s shift to a mayor-appointed school board did not violate Equal Protection or the Voting Rights Act absent proof of purposeful racial discrimination or a race-based abridgment of political participation.


Mixon v. Ohio, 193 F.3d 389 (6th Cir. 1999)