Showing posts with label John G Heyburn II. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John G Heyburn II. Show all posts

Thursday, August 06, 2009

Jefferson County Wins a Round

This from C-J:

Heyburn's ruling
In a decision that provides certainty for parents as the school year begins, U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II has upheld a key component of the Jefferson County Public Schools student assignment plan. Following a hearing Tuesday, the judge said the portion of the plan that affects some 7,000 kindergarten students is not unconstitutional and does not assign children based on race.

The school district is back in court only two years after the U.S. Supreme Court lamentably (and most narrowly) set aside the previous assignment plan, one that used race as a primary factor in determining the school a student could attend. Interestingly enough, Judge Heyburn had (correctly in our view) upheld the earlier plan, noting that race was a factor in assignments, but that other things also came into play. His ruling was affirmed by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, only to be reversed by the high court, led by Bush appointees...

Friday, August 03, 2007

Schools' course since race ruling OK'd

Fall assignments won't change

This from Chris Kenning at The Courier-Journal:

Jefferson County Public Schools' decision to stop using race for new student assignments and transfers is "entirely consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision," a federal judge said yesterday.

In a court hearing, Chief U.S. District Judge John Heyburn said the high court's recent 5-4 decision allows the district to adopt any plan it wants by any date -- as long as it doesn't use race to assign individual students to schools.

School board Chairman Joe Hardesty said yesterday's hearing means that "there's no reason we can't proceed on the timetable we've established" for instituting a new student-assignment plan by the 2009-10 school year.

Attorney Teddy Gordon, who represented parent Crystal Meredith in the lawsuit that led to the Supreme Court ruling and requested the hearing, did not object to the timeline...

...Heyburn brushed aside Gordon's implication that the district might still be applying race but using the lack of space as an excuse, saying Gordon offered no credible evidence.

"If anyone is denied a transfer in violation of the Supreme Court decision, I'll take it up on a case

Monday, July 30, 2007

Lawyer in schools case seeks fees, wants immediate hearing on student assignment

Jefferson parents' attorney asks judge to set payment
A Louisville lawyer who successfully challenged Jefferson County Public Schools' racial-integration policy wants the district to pay his legal fees, plus a bonus, according to a motion filed yesterday.
At least one legal expert says the final figure could reach hundreds of thousands of dollars or more.
Attorney Teddy Gordon, who represented parents in a lawsuit decided by the U.S. Supreme Court last month, isn't saying exactly how much he thinks the district should pay him, but he wants more than $200 an hour, and a bonus to reflect the case's impact on schools nationwide.
"I have spent thousands of my own money on expenses and court costs," he said in a statement, while declining to say how much he thinks he deserves. "Because I am a sole practitioner who has worked hundreds of hours on these cases, I was not able to take on other clients."

Gordon's filing leaves it up to U.S. District Judge John Heyburn to determine how much he should be paid. School district lawyers declined to comment on his request...
This from the Courier-Journal.
And...
Lawyer wants hearing on student assignments
A Louisville lawyer is seeking an immediate hearing to discuss whether Jefferson County Public Schools should reassign students for the coming school year in the wake of June’s U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down the district’s integration policy.
Attorney Teddy Gordon filed a motion today in U.S. District Court — three days after Judge John Heyburn rejected as “outrageous” Gordon's motion calling for school leaders to be jailed unless they could prove they weren’t in contempt for failing to change race-based assignments made before last month’s ruling.
Gordon has estimated that about 2,800 students were denied choices strictly because of race during assignments for the 2007-08 school year, which begins Aug. 13. He wants those students to be allowed to change schools if they want and if there is space elsewhere.
This from the Courier-Journal.

Saturday, July 28, 2007

Judge tosses contempt request against JCPS

A federal judge yesterday abruptly dismissed a Louisville lawyer's demand that Jefferson County Public Schools leaders be held in contempt and jailed unless they could prove students weren't still being denied a school choice because of race.

In a sharply worded ruling, Chief U.S. District Judge John G. Heyburn II chastised attorney Teddy Gordon, who successfully challenged Jefferson County's student-assignment policy.

"Defendants need not respond to such an outrageous motion, couched in such unprofessional language," Heyburn wrote in a ruling that was issued before school district lawyers even had a chance to respond.

This week, Gordon filed a motion asking that an estimated 2,800 Jefferson County students assigned for the 2007-08 school year be given the option to attend different schools because they had been denied their school choice because of race.

Gordon argued that failing to do so violated the Supreme Court ruling, and he asked that school board members and administrators be held in contempt.

Heyburn ruled yesterday that Gordon and his client, Louisville parent Crystal Meredith, may disagree with the district's stance that it has taken steps to comply with the ruling -- dropping the use of race in assigning new and transfer students, but not making changes for students who were assigned before the ruling.

But he said they need to file an appropriate motion to make their case.

"Calling for contempt citations and incarceration of individual school board members and administrators will not advance the resolution of any legitimate concerns," Heyburn ruled, adding that the court would "gladly set an immediate hearing to discuss any future valid motions that require attention." ...

This from the Courier-Journal.