“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
.
What’s at stake in this case?
A Louisiana school board tried to end a desegregation case without a hearing to determine if desegregation had been fully achieved
What happened in this case?
In the 1960s, both the United States and private plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Concordia Parish school district in Louisiana, seeking to remedy school segregation there. Desegregation orders were entered, and the case continued for a long period. In 2025, the school board and the federal government brought a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice. The Trump Administration had vowed to end school desegregation cases across the country, changing the Department of Justice’s previous position of monitoring and seeking to bring about further desegregation in such cases.
The district court, however, did not agree to the immediate dismissal of the case. Judge Dee Drell, an experienced judge appointed by President George W Bush, stated that the “protection of others” was also at issue and, as in many desegregation cases, ordered evidentiary hearings to determine whether desegregation of the district had been accomplished so the case could be dismissed on the merits. The school board and the US disagreed, and sought a writ of mandamus to require prompt dismissal of the case.
In the Fifth Circuit, Trump judges Don Willett and Cory Wilson granted a writ of mandamus and ordered dismissal of the case without an evidentiary hearing, based largely on the fact that the school board and the US had agreed to dismiss the case. Cljnton judge C dissented.arl Stewart
Why did Judge Stewart dissent?
Judge Stewart explained that it was clearly a “misstep” for the majority to “clip the wings of a seasoned district court judge” who wanted to hold an evidentiary hearing in the case and who is “familiar with complex legal history, Concordia Parish schools, the relevant geography, the parties in this case, and the Government’s recently changed posture and strategy.” Judge Stewart maintained that the district court should have been permitted to hold appropriate hearings to determine whether desegregation had been achieved to the extent possible and whether the district had thus achieved what is referred to as “unitary status”, after which the case could properly have been dismissed.
Why is the ruling harmful?
The ruling by Trump judges Willett and Wilson harms the students and parents of Concordia Parish, who retain a vital interest in achieving desegregation of their schools. It also sets a bad precedent concerning the ending of desegregation decrees, and following the Trump policy of ending such judgments as soon as possible. This is particularly so in the Fifth Circuit, which includes Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi and in which many districts have undergone desegregation. In addition, the decision illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.