Once and For All Time

At Dispatches from the Culture Wars, there is a discussion of the legal possibilities opened up by the ouster of the pro-ID members of the Dover, Pennsylvania School Board by the voters by Ed Brayton. Brayton concludes in part by saying:

[I]ronically, it may end up being true that having pro-ID candidates thrown out of office at this point is the best thing the ID movement could have hoped for. But only time will tell that. I suspect that, at the very least, we will get a ruling from Judge Jones on the merits of the case. After that, there is a great deal of uncertainty as to how it proceeds.

I think that his pessimism is unfounded. The way I view it, there are four possibilities:

1. Prior to the December 5 date that the new board is installed, the court issues a ruling substantially vindicating the position of the plaintiffs. Before the new board is installed, the lame duck Id'ers cause the defendants to file an appeal. That appeal will not be heard until substantially after the new board is installed. This gives the new board the ability to enter with the plaintiffs into a consent decree that says, essentially, as follows: the plaintiffs win on every point, including getting the entry of a declaratory judgment, but the plaintiffs relinquish their claim for attorneys' fees.


2. Prior to the December 5 date that the new board is installed, the court issues a ruling substantially vindicating the position of the old ID'er board. The plaintiffs file an appeal. That appeal will not be heard until substantially after the new board is installed. This gives the new board the ability to enter with the plaintiffs into a consent decree that says, essentially, as follows: the plaintiffs win on every point, including getting the entry of a declaratory judgment, but the plaintiffs relinquish their claim for attorneys' fees.


3. After the December 5 date that the new board is installed, the court issues a ruling substantially vindicating the position of the plaintiffs. Here, the new board likely can settle for a consent decree that says, essentially, as follows: the plaintiffs win on every point, including getting the entry of a declaratory judgment, but the plaintiffs relinquish their claim for attorneys' fees.


4. Finally, there is a possibility that after the December 5 date that the new board is installed, the court issues a ruling substantially vindicating the position of the old ID'er board. Here, the plaintiffs will likely appeal, but they should be willing to settle for a consent decree that says, essentially, as follows: the plaintiffs win on every point, including getting the entry of a declaratory judgment, but the plaintiffs relinquish their claim for attorneys' fees.

In other words, there are four basic paths to a final resolution, all of which lead to the same end: A final, non-appealable decree that bars ID from the Dover schools--forever. Because the consent decree would be entered into by the board and would be supported by consideration from the plaintiffs (their relinquishment of their claim for attorneys' fees), the decree cannot be vacated if ID'ers again get control of the school board.