Corpus: 543,223 opinions ·
3,177 judges ·
newest 2026-06-23 · expanding
Coverage ↗
Opinion
govinfo:USCOURTS-alnd-5_63-cv-00109-2
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
SONNIE WELLINGTON HEREFORD,
IV, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Intervenor,
v.
HUNTSVILLE BOARD OF
EDUCATION, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 5:63-cv-00109-MHH
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
The City of Huntsville Board of Education has operated under federal
supervision since 1970. (Doc. 67; see Doc. 364, pp. 8–23). The Court has
supervised the school district’s work in several areas pursuant to Brown v. Bd. of
Edu., 347 U.S. 483 (1954), and Green v. County School Bd. of New Kent Cnty., Va.,
391 U.S. 430 (1968). The Board has asked the Court to release it from supervision
as to three Green factors: faculty and staff, facilities, and extracurricular activities.
(Doc. 827; see also Docs. 758, 759, 782). This opinion addresses the Board’s
motion.
FILED
2026 Apr-13 PM 01:39
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
Case 5:63-cv-00109-MHH Document 854 Filed 04/13/26 Page 1 of 12
2
As the Court stated in its April 2015 memorandum opinion in this case, in
1963, “Huntsville’s public schools were racially segregated by law. Negro children
[were] sent to Negro schools only and [those] schools [were] staffed solely by Negro
personnel. Conversely, white children [were] sent only to schools containing white
children,” and those schools were “staffed solely by white personnel.” (Doc. 449,
p. 2) (quoting March 11, 1963, Affidavit in Support of Motion for Preliminary
Injunction, ¶ 5). In 1970, the Court ordered the Board to file with the United States
Office of Education a desegregation plan for the school district. (Doc. 67, pp. 1–2).1
The desegregation plan was to “announce and implement” policies addressing
faculty and staff; majority to minority transfers; equity in school construction and
site selection; interdistrict transfers; equity in services, facilities, activities, and
programs, including athletics and other extracurricular activities; and equity in
transportation. (Doc. 67, pp. 3–8). For decades, in fits and starts, the Board
implemented the desegregation plan. (Doc. 364, pp. 8–23).
In April 2015, 45 years after the Court ordered the Board to implement a plan
for desegregation of the school district, the United States Department of Justice and
the Board presented to the Court a proposed consent order to update that Board’s
desegregation obligations and position the Board to finally “eliminate the vestiges
1 In 1970, the Office of Education was part of the United States Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare. (Doc. 67, p. 1).
Case 5:63-cv-00109-MHH Document 854 Filed 04/13/26 Page 2 of 12
3
of the unconstitutional de jure system.” Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 485 (1992);
(see Doc. 388-1). The consent order covers several topics including faculty,
facilities, and extracurricular activities. (Doc. 450, pp. 62–73). The Court approved
the consent order, (Doc. 450), and the Board has worked diligently to implement its
obligations under the order.
To evaluate the Board’s motion for release from supervision in the areas of
faculty, facilities, and extracurricular activities, the Court uses the criteria the United
States Supreme Court has established for public school desegregation cases. Public
school systems that were racially segregated by law must abolish “‘the system of
segregation and its effects’” so that racial discrimination in public education is
eliminated “root and branch.” Green, 391 U.S. at 438, 440. “The Green factors are
a measure of the racial identifiability of schools in a system that is not in compliance”
with Brown. Freeman, 503 U.S. at 486. When a public school district eliminates
the vestiges of the prior unconstitutional de jure system “to the extent practicable”
and demonstrates its good faith commitment to the future operation of the public
school system through “specific policies, decisions, and courses of action that extend
into the future,” a federal court must “restore state and local authorities to the control
of a school system that is operating in compliance with the Constitution.” Bd. of
Educ. of Oklahoma City Pub. Sch. v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237, 249-50 (1991). In its
Case 5:63-cv-00109-MHH Document 854 Filed 04/13/26 Page 3 of 12
4
discretion, a district court may “order an incremental or partial withdrawal of its
supervision and control” over a public school district. Freeman, 503 U.S. at 489.
Faculty and Staff
The 1970 desegregation order obligated the Huntsville Board of Education to
assign all “principals, teachers, teacher-aides, and other staff who work directly with
children at a school” so that no public school in the district was racially identifiable.
(Doc. 67, p. 3). The Board was to assign staff so that the ratio of Black to white
teachers and other school staff at each school was “substantially the same as each
such ratio [was] to the teachers and other staff, respectively, in the entire school
system.” (Doc. 67, p. 3). The 2015 consent order updated the Board’s
responsibilities concerning the recruitment, hiring, promotion, demotion,
termination, and assignment of faculty and staff. (Doc. 450, pp. 65–66, §§ V.A–B).
The consent order requires the Board to keep records regarding faculty and staff and
establishes new annual reporting obligations for the Board. (Doc. 450, pp. 67–70,
§§ V.C–D).2
The record demonstrates that the Board has, to the extent practicable,
eliminated the vestiges of de jure segregation with respect to faculty and staff. When
the Court implemented the 2015 consent order, 30 % of the district’s principals were
2 The district has complied with its reporting requirements under the 2015 consent order.
Case 5:63-cv-00109-MHH Document 854 Filed 04/13/26 Page 4 of 12
5
Black, and 40 % of the staff members in the district’s schools were Black. (Doc.
828-1, p. 5) (citing Doc. 542, p. 28; Doc. 565-7, p. 2). In 2024, 56 % of the district’s
principals were Black, and 53 % of the staff members in the district’s school were
Black. (Doc. 828-1, p. 5).3 When the Court implemented the 2015 consent order,
27 % of the district’s teachers were Black, (Doc. 828-1, p. 5) (citing Doc. 542, p.
28), and in 2024, 33 % of the teachers in the district’s schools were Black. (Doc.
828-1, p. 5). Overall faculty retention increased from 80% in 2016–2017 to 88% in
2023–2024, with some fluctuations over the years. (Doc. 828-1, p. 4, ¶ 6).4 The
increase in teacher retention is indicative of the Board’s good faith, demonstrating
the Board’s effort to retain Black and white teachers.
On this record, the Board has demonstrated its good faith commitment to
hiring principals, faculty, and staff in a manner that prevents the schools in the
district from being racially identifiable, and the Board appears to be committed to
retaining its Black principals, faculty, and staff. Accordingly, the Board has satisfied
3 In 2023, the Court suspended the Board’s reporting obligations as to faculty and staff, (Doc. 770,
p. 4, ¶ 5), but the Court required the Board to preserve the records needed for reporting under
Section V.D. of the Consent Order, so that updated information would remain available to the
Court and the United States should future proceedings in this matter require it, (Doc. 770, p. 4,
n.2).
4 The district struggled with teacher retention in the 2020-21 and 2021-22 school years during the
Covid pandemic. (See Doc. 828-1, p. 4, ¶ 6). The number of Black teachers in the district was
largely consistent over those years, and the number has increased in the past two academic years.
(Doc. 828-1, pp. 5, 7, ¶ 7).
Case 5:63-cv-00109-MHH Document 854 Filed 04/13/26 Page 5 of 12
6
the faculty and staff Green factor. The Court releases the Board from federal
supervision of faculty and staff.
Extracurricular Activities
The 1970 desegregation order stated that no student could be segregated from
or discriminated against “on account of race or color in any . . . extracurricular
activity . . . that may be conducted or sponsored by or affiliated with the school in
which [the student] is enrolled.” (Doc. 67, p. 7). Under the 2015 consent order,
public high schools in the district have had to offer a variety of extracurricular
activities, including honor societies, math teams, ROTC, student leadership
organizations, and other clubs. (Doc. 450, p. 62, § IV.A). Middle and junior high
schools have had to offer activities such as National Junior Honor Society, a math
team, and at least one student leadership organization. (Doc. 450, p. 62, § IV.B).
Elementary schools have had to offer at least one math club. (Doc. 450, pp. 62–63,
§§ IV.C–D). The Board has had to ensure that students and families have received
information about extracurricular opportunities. (Doc. 450, p. 63, §§ IV.E–F). Each
year, the Board has had to provide to the United States copies of school yearbooks
and submit a report containing, by school, details regarding the extracurricular
activities offered, student participation rates, and measures used to inform students
about available activities. (Doc. 450, pp. 63–64, §§ IV.G–H).
Case 5:63-cv-00109-MHH Document 854 Filed 04/13/26 Page 6 of 12
7
In their February 2024 Joint Status Report, the parties stated that, with minor
exceptions, the Board has complied with its desegregation obligations concerning
extracurricular activities. (Doc. 782, pp. 8–9). The Board has promoted its
extracurricular clubs and teams through a variety of channels, such as morning
announcements at schools, paper handouts, newsletters emailed to parents, text
notifications, and flyers posted throughout schools. (Doc. 828-1, pp. 7–8, ¶ 9).
The Board has consistently provided the United States with copies of
yearbooks, as required under the consent order. (Doc. 828-1, p. 8, ¶ 10). In its
annual reports, the Board has provided comprehensive data regarding its
extracurricular offerings and participation rates. (See, e.g., Doc. 500, pp. 21–23;
Doc. 505-8; Doc. 505-9; Doc. 506-1; Doc. 667, pp. 32–35; Doc. 667-38; Doc. 667-
39; Doc. 667-40; Doc. 744, pp. 27–30; Doc. 744-4; Doc. 816, pp. 34–36; Doc. 816-
8).5
Having reviewed the information that Superintendent Sutton provided in
support of the Board’s motion, the Court is satisfied that the Board has made
significant efforts to eliminate barriers and ensure that students may join the clubs
and academic teams available at their schools, and the Board has attempted to
provide clubs and academic teams equitably across schools in the district. (Doc.
5 Because the Court suspended the Board’s reporting obligations, (Doc. 841), the Board’s 2025
annual report does not include a complete extracurricular report.
Case 5:63-cv-00109-MHH Document 854 Filed 04/13/26 Page 7 of 12
8
828-1, pp. 10–14, ¶¶ 14-20). The Board has demonstrated its commitment to
continue to organize and make available to all students in each public school
extracurricular programs without regard to race.
Therefore, the Court releases the Board from federal supervision with respect
to the extracurricular activities Green factor.
Facilities
The 1970 desegregation order prohibited the Board discriminating against any
student “on account of race or color in any . . . facility . . . with[in] the school in
which he [was] enrolled.” (Doc. 67, p. 7). In addition, “[a]ll school use or school-
sponsored use of . . . facilities . . . [were] to be open to persons without regard to race
or color.” (Doc. 67, p. 7). Under the 2015 consent order, the Board has had to ensure
that school facilities are equitable. (Doc. 450, p. 71, § VI.A). The consent order
mandated the construction of new facilities for Jemison High School, McNair Junior
High School, Grissom High School, Whitesburg Pre-K through 8th Grade School,
Sonnie Hereford Elementary School, and Morris Pre-K through 8th Grade School.
(Doc. 450, p. 71, § VI.A.1, 3). In addition, the Board had to complete renovations
at Martin Luther King, Jr. Elementary School and the Academy for Academics and
Arts. (Doc. 450, p. 71, § VI.A.2). The Board had to fully implement its Playground
Plan and ensure that each school serving grades seven and eight was equipped with
a SMALLab. (Doc. 450, p. 71, §§ VI.A.4–5).
Case 5:63-cv-00109-MHH Document 854 Filed 04/13/26 Page 8 of 12
9
Under the consent order, when the Board renovates or replaces existing school
facilities, it must “adhere to District-wide standards, such that following renovations
or construction, the school or renovated section of the school meets the same
standards of quality as applied to newer schools.” (Doc. 450, p. 72, § VI.B.1). The
Board also must “[m]aintain standards for ensuring that as improvements are made
to teaching technology, school security systems (e.g., door alarms), and
environmental materials remediation, all schools are treated comparably.” (Doc.
450, p. 72, § VI.B.2). Additionally, the Board had to “[e]liminate all portables in
use during the 2014-15 school year by the 2017-2018 school year, and, in the future,
use portables in the District only as necessary as an interim solution.” (Doc. 450, p.
72, § VI.B.3).
The Board has satisfied its construction and renovation obligations under the
consent order. (Doc. 541, pp. 7-8; Doc. 782, pp. 10-11). The Board has
implemented its elementary school playground equipment modernization project.
(Doc. 828-2, p. 5, ¶ 5). The Board complied with its obligation to install SMALLabs
in schools that house grades seven and eight, (Doc. 541, pp. 7-8), and received
permission to discontinue the SMALLab rooms in favor of expanded classroom
space, (Doc. 744, p. 45). The Board consistently informed the United States and the
Court about the phase out of the SMALLabs. (See Doc. 782, p. 11). The Board has
complied with its obligations regarding portable classroom space, though portables
Case 5:63-cv-00109-MHH Document 854 Filed 04/13/26 Page 9 of 12
10
still seem to be in use, and the Board has consistently filed its annual facilities
reports. (See Doc. 840-1, p. 27; Doc. 457, pp. 31 – 34; Doc. 463-1; Doc. 500, pp.
32–34; Doc. 507-1; Doc. 542, pp. 33–35; Doc. 569-3; Doc. 598, pp. 38–40; Doc.
637-3; Doc. 667, pp. 46–49; Doc. 667-55; Doc. 698, pp. 38–41; Doc. 698-7; Doc.
723, pp. 38–41; Doc. 723-7; Doc. 744, pp. 41–45; Doc. 744-7; Doc. 779, pp. 26 -
28; Doc. 779-5; Doc. 816, pp. 37–39; Doc. 816-5).6
With respect to its demonstration of good faith, the Board prepared and
submitted a ten-year capital plan for Court approval that sought to address critical
facility needs in an equitable and fiscally responsible way while supporting
desegregation efforts. (See Doc. 797). The Court approved the Board’s motion to
proceed with the capital plan. (Doc. 803).
In the Desegregation Advisory Committee’s 2024–2025 Annual Report, the
DAC expressed concerns regarding the motion to release the Board from judicial
supervision of facilities due to “significant anticipated changes within the capital
plan.” (Doc. 840-1, p. 17). The DAC suggested that the Board provide regular
updates as capital improvement plan projects begin or reach completion. (Doc. 840-
1, p. 27). The DAC believes that such communication will foster community
engagement and public understanding. (Doc. 840-1, p. 27).
6 Because the Court suspended the Board’s reporting obligations, (Doc. 841), the Board’s 2025
annual report does not include a complete facilities report.
Case 5:63-cv-00109-MHH Document 854 Filed 04/13/26 Page 10 of 12
11
In his response to the 2024–2025 DAC report, the Superintendent provided
information about steps the district is taking to reduce the use of portable classrooms.
(Doc. 840-2, pp. 7–8), and the Superintendent stated that the Board will provide
updates on implementation of the Capital Plan at Board meetings, (Doc. 840-2, p.
8).
The record demonstrates that the Huntsville Board of Education has complied
in good faith with the facilities requirements in the 2015 consent order. Through
correspondence with counsel for the parties, during the 2025 fall semester, the Court
attempted to schedule a conversation with the DAC regarding the capital plan; the
Court has not located a response from counsel.7 Given the ongoing implementation
of the ten-year capital plan and the concerns articulated by the DAC regarding
release from supervision of facilities during that implementation, the Court will offer
one more opportunity for a conversation with the DAC or the DAC Chair before the
Court rules on the Green facilities factor.
In sum, the Court releases the Board from supervision of faculty and staff and
extracurricular activities and defers ruling on the Board’s request for release from
supervision of facilities.
7 The Court sent a message on October 2, 2025 offering a meeting in October 2025 and a message
on October 27, 2025 offering a meeting on November 19, 2025.
Case 5:63-cv-00109-MHH Document 854 Filed 04/13/26 Page 11 of 12
12
Given the Court’s release of the Board from supervision of faculty and staff,
Doc. 758 is moot. The Clerk of Court shall please TERM Docs. 758 and 827.
DONE and ORDERED this April 13, 2026.
_________________________________
MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:63-cv-00109-MHH Document 854 Filed 04/13/26 Page 12 of 12