San Diego Intervenors
Challenge Court Assignment of Pupils
in Carlin v. Board of Education
Toward Restoring Local Control
of San Diego Public Schools

Upon the ruling in Freeman in addition to Dowell, Groundswell Intervenors now had a solid basis upon which to challenge continuing Carlin court jurisdiction, particularly over student assignment. But they ran into extremely strong opposition by their own school board, because the Defendant Board in the Carlin case now sided with the Carlin Plaintiffs in seeking to extend court jurisdiction indefinitely.

For this reason the Groundswell motions started right after Freeman took until December 15, 1995 to obtain an order terminating jurisdiction. Because Phase 5 of Liberate Public Schools details these motions and the opposition to them, they will be summarized here.
 

Second Motion to Terminate Jurisdiction

On April 6, 1992, Groundswell Intervenors moved to terminate court jurisdiction with a memorandum in support, relying strongly upon Dowell and Freeman, supra.

On May 20, 1992, in reversal of its 1981 position, the Board filed an opposition to the effect that the end of Court supervision could result in some loss of state integration funding support. Intervenors replied that the Board's speculative objection was not a legal basis for abdication of Board's jurisdiction.

The Carlin Class also opposed termination of the case arguing mainly that Board had not yet fully complied with the Writ of Mandate issued in 1977.

On May 28, 1992, the Court denied the motion.
 

Carlin v. Board of Education, San Diego Unified School District,
San Diego Superior Court No. 303800 (1967-1998)
San Diego, California
 

Dowell 

Board of Ed. of Oklahoma City v. Dowell, 498 U.S. 237 (1990)
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Enstrom: filed amici curiae brief
 

Freeman 

Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 112 S.Ct. 1430 (1992)
DeKalb County School System (DCSS),
DeKalb County, Georgia
Enstrom: filed amici curiae brief
 

— Handbook: Challenge Four, pages 55 - 63 —