logo
Inside Trump's push against school desegregation plans

Inside Trump's push against school desegregation plans

Axios29-05-2025

The Trump administration is signaling it wants to ditch federal desegregation efforts in public school systems, a move that would end much-debated, decades-old programs mainly aimed at improving education opportunities for nonwhite students.
Why it matters: Lifting desegregation policies set by federal rules and court orders — some of them a half-century old — could lead to a wide range of changes in more than 80 school systems Axios has identified as still being under such requirements.
Those systems, primarily in the South, would no longer have to follow policies that set flexible transfer rules, school boundary guidelines, diversity hiring goals, and requirements for equal resources among schools, for example.
It also would mean that Black and Latino parents in school systems that have been historically resistant to desegregation efforts likely would have less help tackling allegations of discrimination.
State of play: This month, the Trump administration moved to dismiss a school desegregation case in Louisiana that began in 1966 in mostly white Plaquemines Parish.
Plaquemines schools — like many systems targeted by the government's efforts — were run by white segregationists when Lyndon Johnson's administration sued the district for resisting the 1954 Supreme Court Brown v. Board of Education decision, which outlawed racial segregation in schools.
Now, President Trump's Justice Department says it has "righted a historical wrong" by "freeing" the Plaquemines school board from federal oversight.
The DOJ and Plaquemines school officials — who say their district addressed its equity issues long ago — have asked a judge to dismiss the case.
After that announcement, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill (R) said she wants to end more desegregation orders in the state.
To close desegregation cases, the U.S. government and a school system must agree to end monitoring agreements or get approval from a federal judge in most cases.
The big picture: Trump's administration has been focused on removing programs that have benefited people in historically disadvantaged communities — and on fighting what it has called anti-white discrimination.
The administration, for example, has said the U.S. government no longer will unequivocally prohibit contractors from having segregated restaurants, waiting rooms and drinking fountains.
Trump also has revoked President Johnson's decades-old order on diversity and affirmative action practices in the U.S. government.
Zoom in: Like those in Plaquemines, some school officials in districts still under desegregation orders say they've met their integration and equity goals — and that the orders still in effect amount to government overreach at a time when enrollments are more diverse than ever.
However, civil rights advocates argue that desegregation programs are still necessary, citing ongoing disparities in educational opportunities and test scores.
The advocates also point to the "resegregation" happening in many systems, as white students disproportionately leave neighborhood schools for charter and private schools.
By the numbers: At least 84 school districts remain under court orders or federal monitoring agreements, an Axios review found.
More than half of those districts — 63% — are in Alabama, Georgia or Mississippi in the South's " Black Belt," a rural and historically impoverished area with large Black populations dating back to enslavement.
Another 26% of the districts are in Louisiana, Florida, Tennessee and Texas.
Zoom in: The Huntsville City (Ala.) system is among the districts that still have active desegregation orders.
The district has struggled since 1970 to adjust school zoning policies that often have reinforced racial divides and limited extracurricular activities for Black students, according to court documents.
The school district recently filed for a partial release from its desegregation order. The Trump administration's Justice Department didn't object.
What they're saying: Raymond Pierce, president and CEO of the Southern Education Foundation, tells Axios the Trump administration appears to see school desegregation with the disdain it's shown for DEI programs.
"They want to blend diversity, equity and inclusion with civil rights," Pierce said. "DEI is good policy, but desegregation is the law."
Pierce added that many districts that still have desegregation orders have never adopted effective plans, and have been waiting for an administration that would de-emphasize them.
" These are places that never desegregated seriously, so the chances that minority students will get any response from the courts in the future to violations of rights will vanish," said Gary Orfield, co-director of the UCLA Civil Rights Project.
Noliwe Rooks, author of " Integrated: How American Schools Failed Black Children," told Axios that desegregation failed to address many Black students' needs — whether that meant upgrading their schools, moving them to better ones or providing equal resources.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump's Administration Has Asked Ally Serbia to Accept Deportees
Trump's Administration Has Asked Ally Serbia to Accept Deportees

Bloomberg

time32 minutes ago

  • Bloomberg

Trump's Administration Has Asked Ally Serbia to Accept Deportees

President Donald Trump's administration is pushing Serbia and other Balkan nations to take in migrants deported from the US, according to people familiar with the matter. The requests to countries in the region are ongoing and part of a broader strategy to find foreign governments willing to receive migrants sent from the US, including some who originally entered under Biden-era protections, according to the people, who requested anonymity because the talks were private.

Justice David Souter and state constitutional law
Justice David Souter and state constitutional law

Yahoo

time37 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Justice David Souter and state constitutional law

Among scholars who study state courts and state constitutions, Justice David Souter was notable for the experience at the state level that he brought with him to the Supreme Court. (Photo by) Following retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter's passing last month, commentators memorialized the justice with appreciations of his analytical acumen and commitment to the role of neutral arbiter. Steven Vladeck, for instance, praised Souter for 'just how seriously he took his job as a justice — and a judge.' At the same time, however, as longtime Supreme Court observer Linda Greenhouse noted in The New York Times, Souter's 'name was on so few significant opinions and his profile at the court was so low that after his first few years, legal academia essentially stopped paying attention to him.' Not all of legal academia. Among scholars who study state courts and state constitutions, Souter was notable for the experience at the state level that he brought with him to the Supreme Court. During his tenure as a member of New Hampshire's highest court, that court contributed to the development of state constitutional law in significant ways. The Granite State stood at the forefront of the jurisprudential phenomenon known as the 'new judicial federalism' — the practice of state courts interpreting the individual rights provisions of their own constitutions independently of the Supreme Court's rulings on the parallel protections contained in the federal Bill of Rights. The new judicial federalism was inspired, in large part, by an essay published in the Harvard Law Review in 1977. Alarmed by the extent to which the Supreme Court was retreating from the robust protection of individual rights under the federal constitution, Supreme Court Justice William Brennan reminded readers that 'State constitutions, too, are a font of individual liberties, their protections often extending beyond those required by the Supreme Court's interpretation of federal law.' In other words, individuals and advocates should consider, in appropriate cases, the depth and reach of state constitutional individual rights provisions. The New Hampshire Supreme Court heard Brennan's call. In its 1983 decision in State v. Ball, the high court held that, when state constitutional issues are properly raised, the state courts have 'a responsibility to make an independent determination of the protections afforded in the New Hampshire Constitution.' To ignore this obligation, the court continued, would be to fail in the duty to defend the state constitution, which in turn would undermine 'the federalism that must be so carefully safeguarded by our people.' A commitment to the independent interpretation of the state constitution necessarily entails the development of approaches and modes of analysis suited to that particular constitutional context, which Justice Souter recognized in a 1986 case, State v. Bradberry. Souter had been appointed to the high court when the court issued its opinion in Ball, but he did not participate in the decision. Bradberry thus presented an opportunity for him to explain the stakes for state constitutional law in individual rights cases: 'If we place too much reliance on federal precedent,' he wrote, 'we will render the State rules a mere row of shadows; if we place too little, we will render State practice incoherent. If we are going to steer between these extremes, we will have to insist on developed advocacy from those who bring the cases before us.' Justice Souter's plea for support from the bar in state constitutional cases continues to resonate. In our treatise on state constitutional law, 'The Law of American State Constitutions,' my co-author Bob Williams and I referred to Souter's opinion in Bradberry as a definitive statement on the matter. In the book, we echoed the perspective articulated in his opinion: State courts that rely wholly on federal law in interpreting their state constitutional rights protections risk diminishing those protections, while too little respect for federal precedent risks isolating a state's law from the larger, national discourse about the meaning of common individual rights provisions. His experience with state constitutional law and the new judicial federalism distinguished Justice Souter's career from that of most of his fellow U.S. Supreme Court justices, and the New Hampshire Supreme Court's commitment to fostering independent state constitutional interpretation in State v. Ball has distinguished it from other state courts. In Bradberry, Justice Souter maintained that the commitment represents but an initial step toward reckoning with state constitutional text. In ascertaining the meaning of the state's charter, Souter advised, the state's courts should expect to rely on counsel representing each side of a case to illuminate the text. Such advocacy allows judges to consider the full range of interpretive possibilities that may lie in particular provisions of the New Hampshire Constitution — and creates an alternative to relying exclusively on the views of nine judges in Washington, D.C., who are tasked with construing a similar but fundamentally different constitution

Ex-Trump Aide Spells Out How Elon Musk Could Gain Ultimate Revenge On The President
Ex-Trump Aide Spells Out How Elon Musk Could Gain Ultimate Revenge On The President

Yahoo

time37 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Ex-Trump Aide Spells Out How Elon Musk Could Gain Ultimate Revenge On The President

Former White House communications director Alyssa Farah Griffin explained Wednesday why she believes tech billionaire Elon Musk could now actually 'tank Donald Trump's entire legislative agenda.' Griffin, a co-host on ABC's 'The View,' warned that Musk's vocal opposition to Trump's so-called 'big, beautiful' spending bill could sway Republicans in Congress, especially those worried about the consequences to their seats if they cross the world's richest person. Musk recently slammed the bill as a 'disgusting abomination' for how it will hike the national debt. He had previously staked his reputation on slashing federal spending in his now-ended role running Trump's unofficial Department of Government Efficiency. Trump, for now, has remained silent on Musk's criticism. Griffin, who served in the Trump administration during his first term, noted how the bill has measures on energy, border security and extends Trump's tax cuts. 'If Republicans decide, 'Oooh, we don't want to get on the wrong side of Elon,' that is what Donald Trump is banking it all on,' she continued. 'And that is kind of devastating for his administration.' 'On the flip side, those Republicans, if you're in a House district, you're like, 'I'm afraid of Donald Trump,' but Elon Musk, because of the dark money system we live in, he can come in and primary you by just pouring millions and millions into your race.' All Musk needs to do, she suggested, is 'peel off a handful of Republicans' to tip the balance of power in the House. Watch here: Critics Cackle Over Mike Johnson's Awkward Confession About Elon Musk Phone Call 'You Wussed Out': David Mamet Reveals Trump's 20-Minute Call After He Committed A MAGA Sin Critics Gasp At Trump Official's 'The Thing That Matters' Declaration

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store