## Facts

- In 1969, Black parents and students filed a class action challenging the school district’s “freedom of choice” plan as insufficient to dismantle a dual school system.
- In 1970, the district court adopted a desegregation plan and ordered the district to begin operating a unitary school system, retaining jurisdiction for oversight and reports.
- In 1972, the district court denied a request for additional relief (free busing), finding the district’s schools, staffing, administration, and activities fully integrated and one-race schools eliminated.
- In 1987, plaintiffs renewed litigation, challenging (a) “ability grouping” (tracking) in grades 3–8 and (b) racial disparities in enrollment in advanced high school courses.
- Ability grouping placed students in different instructional groups; higher groups were disproportionately White and lower groups disproportionately Black.
- Advanced and Advanced Placement courses were formally open to all students, but enrollment was disproportionately White.
- The district court found any segregative effect from ability grouping to be minor and not causally connected to the prior de jure system, dissolved outstanding injunctions, and dismissed the case as the district had achieved and maintained unitary status.
- Plaintiffs appealed the dissolution of injunctions and denial of further relief; the district cross-appealed regarding costs.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court properly dissolved outstanding desegregation injunctions and dismissed the case based on a finding of long-standing unitary status.
2. Whether ability grouping in grades 3–8 and racial disparities in advanced-course enrollment constituted unlawful segregation or a vestige of the former dual system requiring additional injunctive relief.
3. Whether the district court properly resolved the award of costs.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment on the desegregation merits, including dissolution of prior injunctive orders and denial of further injunctive relief against ability grouping.
- The Fifth Circuit vacated the portion of the judgment addressing costs and remanded for further proceedings on that issue.

## Legal Principles

- A district court may terminate desegregation supervision when the school district has complied in good faith with prior decrees and has eliminated the vestiges of the former dual system to the extent practicable.
- Racial disproportionality in educational outcomes, without more, does not justify additional desegregation relief; plaintiffs must show the challenged practice is traceable to the former de jure system or reflects intentional discrimination.
- Factual findings on the existence and magnitude of segregative effects and their causal connection to prior de jure segregation are reviewed deferentially on appeal.
- Facial race-neutral educational policies, including ability grouping, are not unconstitutional solely because they correlate with race; additional equitable relief requires proof of a legally sufficient link to past segregation or discriminatory purpose.
- Cost determinations must conform to governing standards; an improper allocation may be vacated and remanded even when the merits are affirmed.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that long-term compliance and sustained unitary operation supported ending federal court oversight, and that racial disparities associated with ability grouping and advanced classes did not warrant new relief absent proof they were caused by the former de jure system or by intentional discrimination; it remanded only for reconsideration of costs.


Quarles v. Oxford Mun. Separate Sch. Dist., 868 F.2d 750 (5th Cir. 1989)