City of Baker School Board v. Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, Recovery School District, and GEO Academies EBR

STATE OF LOUISIANA

FIRST CIRCUIT

NO. 2025 CA 0699
NO. 2025 CW 0448

CITY OF BAKER SCHOOL BOARD

VERSUS

jrBOARD OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION,
RECOVERY SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND GEO ACADEMIES EBR

Judgment Rendered.- SEP 19 2025

Appealed from the
19th Judicial District Court
In and for the Parish of East Baton Rouge
State of Louisiana
Case No. C761785

The Honorable Tarvald A. Smith, Judge Presiding

Jimmy R. Faircloth, Jr. Counsel for Defendant/Appellant
Aaron Green Louisiana Department of Education
Mary Katherine Price
Alexandria, Louisiana

Dannie P. Garrett, III Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee
Baton Rouge, Louisiana City of Baker School Board

BEFORE: THERIOT, PENZATO, AND BALFOUR, JJ.

THERIOT, J.

The Louisiana Department of Education (" DOE") appeals from a trial court

judgment granting a preliminary injunction in favor of the City of Baker School

Board (" School Board"). For the reasons set forth herein, we vacate the trial court' s

May 12, 2025 order and reverse the April 28, 2025 trial court judgment granting the

preliminary injunction.

APPLICABLE SUBSTANTIVE LAW

Article VIII, Section 1 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974 provides that the

Louisiana Legislature shall provide for the education of the people of the state and

shall establish and maintain a public educational system. With the enactment of La.

R. S. 17: 10( A), the legislature tasked the DOE with approval of each public

elementary and secondary school in the state in accordance with minimum standards

submitted by the DOE and approved by the Louisiana State Board of Elementary

and Secondary Education (" BESE").

BESE is a constitutionally created entity with a mandate to supervise and

control the public elementary and secondary schools and special schools in the state.

La. Const. Art. VIII, § 3( A); Hill v. Jindal, 2014- 1757, p. 22 ( La.App. 1 Cir.

6/ 17/ 15), 175 So. 3d 988, 1006, writ denied, 2015- 1394 ( La. 10123/ 15), 179 So. 3d

600. To this end, BESE is statutorily mandated to provide for a statewide system of

accountability for schools and school districts based on student achievement and

minimum standards for the approval of schools by the DOE, as well as procedures

and standards for aligning the school accountability system with the requirements of

the statutes concerning failed schools and their transfer to the Recovery School
District (" RSD").' La. R.S. 17: 10. 1; La. R. S. 17: 10. 5( A)(2). In fulfilling its

1 The RSD was established to provide an appropriate education for children attending any public elementary or
secondary school that has been transferred to the jurisdiction of the RSD pursuant to La. R.S. 17: 10. 5. The RSD has
the authority to provide for the supervision, management, and operation of a school placed under its jurisdiction with
all the same power and authority as the prior system from which it was transferred. La. R.S. 17: 1990.

2

constitutional and statutory responsibilities, BESE has been granted the authority by

the legislature to adopt rules in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act.

for any program, statement, guideline, or requirement for conduct or action

prescribed by BESE, the state superintendent of education, and the DOE. La. R. S.

17: 6. 1. Accordingly, BESE has developed a school accountability system,

promulgated in accordance with La. R. S. 17: 10. 1. See LAC 28: XI. 101, et seq.

Each school operating under the jurisdiction and direction of any city, parish,

or other local public school board or any other public entity (" local educational

agency") that is labeled academically unacceptable pursuant to the school

accountability system established by rules adopted by BESE shall be designated as

a failed school. La. R.S. 17: 10. 5( A)( 1). The local educational agency shall be

required to develop a reconstitution plan to describe the goals, strategies, and

interventions that will be used to address the challenges of the failed school. LAC

28: XI. 1603( A). The required content of the reconstitution plan and the level of

approval required for the plan is based on the number of consecutive years the school

has been labeled academically unacceptable. LAC 28: XI. 1603( A). Further, BESE

has the authority to take control of public elementary or secondary schools that have

been determined to be failing and to supervise, manage, and operate failing schools

or to provide for their supervision, management, and operation. See La. Const. Art.

VIII, § 3( A); La. R.S. 17: 10. 5; La. R.S. 17: 10. 6( 13)( 2)( a); see also Orleans Parish

School Board v. Pastorek, 2012- 1174, p. 4 (La.App. 1 Cir. 8/ 14/ 13), 122 So. 3d 1106,

1109, writ denied, 2013- 2207 ( La. 3/ 21/ 14), 135 So. 3d 617. Pursuant to La. R.S.

17: 10. 5, a failed school shall be removed from the jurisdiction of the local

educational agency and transferred to the jurisdiction of the RSD under certain

circumstances, provided BESE approves the transfer.

BESE is authorized to approve the transfer of a failed school to the RSD if

one or more of the following criteria exists: ( a) the local educational agency fails to

3

present the required reconstitution plan to BESE, or (b) the local educational agency

presents a reconstitution plan that is unacceptable to BESE, or ( c) the local

educational agency fails at any time to comply with the terms of the reconstitution.

plan approved by BESE, or ( d) the school has been labeled an academically

unacceptable school for four consecutive years. La. R. S. 17: 10. 5( A)( 1); LAC

28: CXLV.501( A)( 1). Under the school accountability system, the state

superintendent is to make a recommendation to BESE regarding the transfer of an.

academically unacceptable school to the RSD and propose performance objectives

and the best methods for achieving those objectives in order to bring the failed school

to an acceptable level ofperformance such that the school earns the ability to transfer,

out of the RSD. LAC 28: CXLV.501( A)( 1). Following the state superintendent' s

recommendation, BESE shall make the final decision regarding the transfer of an

academically unacceptable school to the RSD and the appropriate method of

operating the school. LAC 28: CXLV.501( A)( 1)( d). Such a failed school would

then be reorganized, as necessary, and operated by the RSD in such a manner as to

bring the school to an acceptable level of performance. La. R.S. 17: 10. 5( B); LAC

28: CXLV. 501( A)( 1).

In its operation of the failed school, the RSD shall have the right to use any

school building and all facilities and property otherwise part of the school and

recognized as part of the facilities or assets of the school prior to its placement in the

RSD and shall have access to such additional facilities as are typically available to

the school, its students, and faculty and staff prior to its placement in the RSD. Such

use shall be unrestricted, except that the RSD shall be responsible for and obligated

to provide for routine maintenance and repair such that the facilities and property

are maintained in as good an order as when the right ofuse was acquired by the RSD.
La. R.S. 17: 1990( B)( 4)( a).

0

In 2024, two City of Baker School System (" BSS") schools, Baker Heights

Elementary School (" Baker Heights") and Baker Middle School (" Baker Middle"),

were eligible for transfer to the jurisdiction of the RSD under La. R. S. 17: 10. 5( A)( 1)

by virtue of having been deemed academically unacceptable under the school

accountability system for more than four consecutive years. For the 2024- 2025

school year, Baker Heights shared a school building located at 5903 Groom Road

with Park Ridge Academic Magnet School (" Park Ridge") grades K-5, and Baker

Middle shared a school building located at 5905 Groom Road with Park Ridge

grades 6- 8. This shared -facility arrangement was a result of BSS schools being

relocated due to flood damage sustained by several school buildings in 2016. Baker

Heights was previously located at 3750 Harding Street until the 2024- 2025 school

year, when it began sharing the campus at 5903 Groom Road with Park Ridge grades

K-5, and Baker Middle was previously located at 2550 South Street until the 2023-

2024 school year, when it began sharing the campus at 5905 Groom Road with Park

Ridge grades 6- 8. The Harding Street and South Street school buildings remained

vacant after Baker Heights and Baker Middle were relocated to the Groom Road

buildings.

The reconstitution plan required by the school accountability system for

schools such as Baker Heights and Baker Middle that have been labeled

academically unacceptable for four or more consecutive years must include "[ m] ore

intensive interventions, including but not limited to possible transfer to RSD" and

must be approved by BESE. See LAC 28: XI. 1603( A). On September 18, 2024,

BSS Superintendent James T. Stroder submitted a proposed reconstitution plan to

the DOE, State Superintendent Dr. Cade Brumley, and RSD Superintendent Dr.

Pamela Schooler to address the academic needs of Baker Heights and Baker Middle,

R

outlining the actions BSS was implementing to enhance student performance

outcomes.

On November 19, 2024, Dr. Schooler sent a letter to Mr. Stroder, updating

him on the RSD' s " current progress in determining the structure and scope of future

RSD] interventions" at Baker Heights and Baker Middle, and noting that "[ b] oth

schools are now eligible for transfer to the RSD." In this letter, Dr. Schooler stated

that the RSD was conducting a thorough review of the plan submitted by BSS and

requested that BSS provide any updates or supplemental information to its plan by

December 4, 2024.

On December 12, 2024, Dr. Schooler sent another letter to Mr. Stroder,

formally notifying him that Baker Heights and Baker Middle were eligible for

transfer to the RSD by virtue of having been designated as academically

unacceptable for four or more consecutive years. Dr. Schooler acknowledged

receipt of BSS' s reconstitution plan, which she explained was currently under

review, and warned that "[ flt is imperative that your school board refrains from

making grade configuration or substantive school structure changes to these schools

until the reconstitution plan has been reviewed by [the DOE/RSD]," explaining that

a] ny such changes made prematurely may be perceived as an attempt to undermine

the reconstitution plan process and could result in non-compliance with statewide

accountability laws and policies."

Mr. Stroder and the School Board president both reached out to Dr. Schooler

to inquire about the status of BSS' s proposed reconstitution plan in January of 2025.

Dr. Schooler advised that the plan was still being reviewed, but that a decision would

likely be made by Dr. Brumley " within the next few weeks."

On February 10, 2025, Mr. Stroder sent an email to Dr. Schooler, informing

her that BSS " is considering reconstituting two of its failing schools at a special

board meeting on February 12, 2025" and inquiring whether there was any " input"

0

prior to the meeting. According to Mr. Stroder' s email, the action being considered.

would involve " merging Baker Heights and Baker Middle School into a single K-8

school operated by a new administrative and teaching staff," and was similar to

models that had been approved by BESE in other school districts.

After becoming aware of the publication of a revised agenda for the School

Board' s February 12, 2025 special meeting that included consideration of the closure

of Baker Heights and Baker Middle, Dr. Schooler sent a letter to Mr. Stroder and the

School Board members on February 12, 2025, reiterating her previous warning that
any such action " would appear to be an attempt to undermine the reconstitution

plan, which in our review does not provide for the reconfiguration of the

schools, including closure" and requesting that the School Board "cease and desist

from any and all actions to close, merge, and/ or alter the current structure of

Baker Heights and Baker Middle."

The School Board proceeded with its February 12, 2025 special meeting

despite the cease and desist letter. At that meeting, the School Board voted to

relocate Baker Heights and Baker Middle from the campuses shared with Park Ridge

at 5903 and 5905 Groom Road back to their previous sites and to close both failing
schools at the end of the 2024- 2025 school year.

Consideration of the transfer of Baker Heights and Baker Middle to the

jurisdiction of the RSD was placed on the agenda for BESE' s School Innovation and

Turnaround Committee' s March 11, 2025 meeting and BESE' s March 12, 2025

board meeting. Prior to the committee meeting, Drs. Schooler and Brumley met

with Mr. Stroder on March 7, 2025 to discuss various alternatives for Baker Heights

and Baker Middle that would provide BSS with an opportunity to maintain control

in the process while ensuring the best outcomes for students, including the

possibility of contracting with a charter school operator to operate Baker Heights

and Baker Middle. However, after it became clear from discussions with Mr. Stroder

7

that an agreement could not be reached right away, Drs. Schooler and Brumley

elected to proceed with making a recommendation to BESE on the transfer of the

schools to the RSD at its March meetings.

On March 11, 2025, BESE' s School Innovation and Turnaround Committee

recommended that BESE approve the transfer of Baker Heights and Baker Middle

to the RSD effective May 27, 2025, noting that the schools were eligible for transfer

pursuant to La. R.S. 17: 10. 5 because Baker Heights had been labeled as

academically unacceptable for the past four years and Baker Middle had been

2
labeled as academically unacceptable for the past nine years. Thereafter, at its

March 12, 2025 meeting, BESE approved the transfer of Baker Heights and Baker

Middle to the jurisdiction of the RSD, effective May 27, 2025. BESE also voted to

approve GEO Louisiana, Inc. (" GEO") as the direct operator for Baker Heights and

Baker Middle as Type 5 charter schools, effective May 27, 2025. 3

On April 1, 2025, Dr. Schooler sent a letter notifying BSS of the transfer of

the schools to the RSD and further informing BSS that:

In conjunction with this transfer, the RSD has the right to use any
school buildings recognized as part of these schools prior to the
transfer. Accordingly, the building located at 5903 Groom Rd, Baker,
LA 70714 must be transferred to the RSD for its unrestricted use,
effective May 27, 2025. [ citation omitted]

On April 11, 2025, the School Board filed suit against BESE, the RSD, and

GEO, seeking declaratory judgment and preliminary and permanent injunctions.'

The School Board requested that the trial court render a judgment declaring that: ( 1)

BESE did not have the authority to transfer Baker Heights and Baker Middle to the

RSD under La. R.S. 17: 10. 5, because the School Board had already voted to close

2 BESE School Innovation and Turnaround Committee Agenda for March 11, 2025, Executive Summary and
Recommendations, https:// ao.boarddocs.com/ lalbese/ Board.nsf/ o
to?open& id= DCWQWW6B5986.

3 BESE Official Board Minutes, Meeting of March 12, 2025, https:// bese. louisiana.gov/ docs/ default- source/ bese-
official- minutes/2025- 03- 12- bese- meeting-minutes3c72d9649f834f72a4a5b0022fa3c853 pdPsfvrsn= 13fl9645 2.

The School Board also filed a petition for nullity under the open meetings law and request for injunctive relief on
April 11, 2024, assigned Docket No. C- 761784 ( 1911 JDC). The School Board' s appeal from the trial court judgment
dismissing this action is pending before another panel of this court in Docket No. 2025 CA 0799.

those schools; ( 2) BESE did not have authority to transfer the property at 5903

Groom Road for the unrestricted use of the RSD, as this violates the business affairs

provision of La. Const. Art. VIII, § 3( A); and ( 3) any contract between the RSD and

GEO pertaining to Baker Heights and/ or Baker Middle or the facilities at 5903

Groom Road is null and void. The School Board further sought preliminary and

permanent injunctions enjoining BESE, the RSD, and GEO from taking any actions

toward exercising any rights under the purported transfer of Baker Heights and/ or

Baker Middle or interfering with Park Ridge' s operations at both 5903 and 5905

Groom Road.

BESE opposed the request for a preliminary injunction on the grounds that

the School Board is not likely to succeed on the merits and has failed to show

irreparable injury or harm specific to BESE. The RSD filed dilatory exceptions of

lack of procedural capacity and unauthorized use of a summary proceeding, and

BESE joined in the exception of unauthorized use of a summary proceeding. In the

first exception, the RSD pointed out that it is not a juridical person capable of being

sued, and that the proper party defendant for a claim against RSD is the DOE, citing

Tankerson v. Dallas, 2010- 0102, p. I ( La.App. 4 Cir. 3/ 10/ 10), 34 So. 3d 355, 356

T] he RSD is not a juridical person and ... the proper party to be sued in a claim

for or against the RSD is the DOE."). In the second exception, the RSD and BESE

argued that a preliminary injunction could not be issued since the School Board.

sought mandatory ( as opposed to prohibitory) injunctive relief, citing Deshotels v.

White, 2016- 0889, p. 7 ( La.App. I Cir. 8/ 16/ 17), 226 So. 3d 1211, 1218, writ denied,

2017- 1565 ( La. 12/ 5/ 17), 231 So. 3d 628 ( recognizing that, as a matter of law, it is

not possible to issue a mandatory preliminary injunction). In response, the School

0

Board filed a supplemental and amending petition, replacing the RSD with the DOE

as a defendant and withdrawing the request for a preliminary injunction as to BESE.'

A hearing was held on April 21, 2025 on the School Board' s request for a

preliminary injunction against the DOE. The School Board argued that once they

voted to close Baker Heights and Baker Middle, BESE no longer had the authority

to transfer the schools to the RSD' s jurisdiction under La. R.S. 17: 10. 5. Further, the

School Board argued that the issuance of a preliminary injunction is necessary

because the RSD expressed an intention to exercise its right to the unrestricted use

of the building at 5903 Groom Road effective May 27, 2025, which would displace

Park Ridge, a school that is not failing and not eligible for transfer to the RSD.

Mr. Stroder testified at the preliminary injunction hearing. At the time Mr.

Stroder became superintendent of BSS in January of 2024, both Baker Heights and

Baker Middle had been failing for some time; however, to his knowledge, there had

not been any effort by BESE to take control of the failing schools prior to the 2024-

2025 school year. In June of 2024, BSS began working with a program called the

Coherence Cohort, which was developed by the DOE to work with the leadership

teams in school districts that have experienced the most difficulty in exiting their
labeled status
of academically unacceptable.
According to Mr. Stroder' s

understanding, BSS would receive allocated funds through the program for

assessment, support, training, and coaching, and the DOE' s contractor would work

with BSS' s leadership teams " to see if [BSS] could move those schools ... out of

academic failing status." Three BSS schools, including Baker Heights and Baker

Middle, elected to participate in the program; however, at the time of the preliminary

injunction hearing, there were not yet any new school accountability scores available

5
Following the preliminary injunction hearing, the School Board filed two additional supplemental and amending
petitions, withdrawing the request for a preliminary injunction against GEO.

10

to show whether any improvement had been made through BSS' s participation in

the program.

Mr. Stroder testified that the first contact he received regarding a potential

takeover of Baker Heights and Baker Middle by BESE was in late August of 2024,

when he was asked to submit a reconstitution plan as required under the law for all

failing schools. On September 19, 2024, Mr. Stroder submitted BSS' s reconstitution

plan for Baker Heights and Baker Middle, along with some additional information

requested by Dr. Schooler regarding district -wide and school -level percentages of

uncertified teachers and per -pupil expenditures at each school in the district. Over

the next few months, Mr. Stroder was told several times that the plan was under

review. Although Dr. Schooler contacted him in late November to ask whether there

was anything BSS wanted to add to the reconstitution plan under consideration, Mr.

Stroder testified that he had already updated the reconstitution plan prior to this

request based on his research into plans that had recently been approved by BESE

for school districts in northern Louisiana.'

After being advised on January 30, 2025 that a decision had still not been

made regarding BSS' s reconstitution plan, Mr. Stroder informed Dr. Schooler by

email on February 10, 2025 that the School Board would hold a special meeting on

February 12, 2025 to consider " reconstituting" Baker Heights and Baker Middle,

following similar models approved for two school districts in northern Louisiana.

According to Mr. Stroder, in Grant and Caddo Parishes, plans to close failing schools

and merge the students with other schools in the district had been approved, leading

him to believe that BSS would be given the same opportunity. Although Mr.

Stroder' s February 10, 2025 email described the action under consideration by the

6 Although Mr. Stroder testified that he submitted an update to the reconstitution plan in November or December of
2024, the only plan in evidence is the one dated September 18, 2024, which does not mention actions taken by the
school districts in north Louisiana.

11

School Board as a " merger" of Baker Heights and Baker Middle into a single K-8

school operated by a new administrative and teaching staff, Mr. Stroder testified that

the plan under consideration was actually to close Baker Heights and Baker Middle

and merge the students from those two schools into Park Ridge, similar to what the

local educational agencies in Grant and Caddo Parishes had been allowed to do.

Although Park Ridge was a selective admissions academic magnet school and many

of the students attending Baker Heights and Baker Middle would not qualify to

attend, Mr. Stroder testified that the plan was to remove Park Ridge' s academic

magnet school status so that all of the students from the failing schools could attend.

Park Ridge. Mr. Stroder testified that the School Board was considering these

measures as an alternative to its previously submitted reconstitution plan since no

decision had yet been made on the plan, explaining that he wanted to start advertising

for a turnaround principal and teachers as soon as possible while good candidates

were still available.

Mr. Stroder acknowledged that Dr. Schooler contacted him and the School

Board members prior to the special meeting, reminding him that " any action to

reconfigure the schools would appear to be an attempt to undermine the

reconstitution plan, which in our review does not provide for the reconfiguration of

the schools, including closure," and requesting that the School Board " cease and.

desist from any and all actions to close, merge, and/ or alter the current structure of"

Baker Heights and Baker Middle." However, Mr. Stroder explained that the School.

Board went ahead with its consideration of the school closures at the special meeting

despite receipt of Dr. Schooler' s cease and desist letter because he did not believe

that Dr. Schooler' s cease and desist letter " ordered" the School Board not to take

any action. Instead, he believed that the letter only " requested" that the School

Board not take any action until the reconstitution plan " has been reviewed" by the

DQE and the RSD. Mr. Stroder further testified that Dr. Schooler' s use of the

12

language " in our review" in her cease and desist letter implied to him that BSS' s

reconstitution plan had already been reviewed. At the special meeting, the School

Board voted to move Baker Heights and Baker Middle back to their previous

locations prior to their relocation to the Groom Road facilities and to close both

schools.
Mr. Stroder testified that both the relocations and the closures voted on by

the School Board were to be effective as of May 21, 2025 ( the last day of the school

year),
because " the state does not officially allow school districts to submit requests

for changing facilities until mid-April."

Mr. Stroder testified that later in the evening following the School Board' s

special meeting, Dr. Schooler called him to request that he meet with her and Dr.

Brumley the next morning. Mr. Stroder eventually met with Drs. Schooler and

Brumley on March 7, 2025, where they discussed a possible alternative solution for

Baker Heights and Baker Middle that would involve the School Board reversing its

decision to close the schools and thereafter entering an administrative agreement

with a charter operator to operate the schools. However, following the meeting, Mr.

Stroder sent a letter to Drs. Schooler and Brumley, explaining that he could not

immediately commit to such a plan and suggesting that " it would be most

appropriate for BESE to defer any action as notice[ d] in its agendas for the

Committee and Board on March 11 and 12, 2025." Following receipt of this

communication from Mr. Stroder, Dr. Schooler withdrew the offered alternative

solution and informed him that "[ a] t this time, we will be moving forward with our

recommendation to BESE on [ March 11, 2025] as planned."

Mr. Stroder testified that he was notified on April 1, 2025 that BESE had

approved the transfer of Baker Heights and Baker Middle to the RSD, effective May

27, 2025, and that in conjunction with the transfer, the building located at 5903

Groom Road " must be transferred to the RSD for its unrestricted use, effective May
27, 2025."
Mr. Stroder explained that the purported transfer of the building at 5903

13

Groom Road to the RSD was a significant problem for BSS because Park Ridge

would need both Groom Road buildings the following school year to accommodate

the large number of students being merged from Baker Heights and Baker Middle

into Park Ridge pursuant to the School Board' s vote, and also because only the

building at 5903 Groom Road contains a full kitchen, which BSS uses to prepare

meals for the students at both Groom Road buildings.

Dr. Schooler also testified at the preliminary injunction hearing. Dr. Schooler

testified that she officially became the superintendent of the RSD in March of 2024,

although she had been acting in that role since January of 2024 due to a vacancy.

She explained that although BSS elected in June of 2024 to participate in the

Coherence Cohert in an attempt to improve the failing schools, that program is a

long term process, not a " miracle turnaround," and the students at Baker Heights and

Baker Middle had been in failing schools for too long and could not afford to wait

and see whether any improvement resulted from BSS' s participation in the program.

Dr. Schooler believed that BSS needed an operator for the schools with proven

results that could turn around the academic and cultural situations and make

significant progress immediately.

Dr. Schooler testified that following BESE' s March 12, 2025 vote to transfer

Baker Heights and Baker Middle to the jurisdiction of the RSD, a decision was made

to transfer only the building at 5903 Groom Road to the RSD, despite the fact that

the RSD was seemingly entitled to the unrestricted use of both Groom Road

buildings pursuant to La. R.S. 17: 1990( B)( 4)( a). Dr. Schooler explained that this

decision was made because the Groom Road facilities had been shared with Park

Ridge, which would still need a building in which to operate. Noting that Baker

Heights and Baker Middle had a total of roughly 539 students, while Park Ridge had

only " around a hundred" students, the RSD elected to use the larger building located

14

at 5903 Groom Road and to leave the smaller building located at 5905 Groom Road

available for Park Ridge' s use.

Dr. Schooler explained that every school district is unique, and a solution for

one failing school will not necessarily be the right solution for another. Dr. Schooler

acknowledged that merging a failing school into a higher performing school is

sometimes a viable option; however, she explained that it was not appropriate in this

case, given the fact that there was not a higher performing school available for the

students at Baker Heights and Baker Middle to attend. In the case of the failing

school in Grant Parish, Dr. Schooler explained that an agreement was reached by the

DOE and the local educational agency that allowed the local educational agency to

close the failing school. This agreement was based on consideration of a number of'

factors, including the school system, which was ranked 14' out of 69 school districts

in the state, its leadership, its action plan, and the availability of "higher performing

seats" for the failing school' s students at a " B" school nearby. In addition, the

agreement was contingent upon the local educational agency' s development of a

reconstitution plan containing certain terms specified by the DOE. In contrast, Dr.

Schooler explained that Baker Heights and Baker Middle have been failing schools

for many years consecutively, BSS is ranked 69' out of 69 school districts in the

state and is the only failing school district in the state, and the only other BSS school

Baker Heights and Baker Middle could be merged with, Park Ridge, is a selective

admissions academic magnet school, meaning that many of the students at Baker

Heights and Baker Middle would not qualify to attend the school. Based on the

different circumstances, Dr. Schooler explained that the plan that was approved for

the failing school in Grant Parish was not deemed appropriate for BSS. Dr. Schooler

also testified about another instance where a local educational agency was allowed

to close a failing school that was eligible for transfer to the RSD, explaining that the

decision was based on the specific circumstances ( including the fact that the local

15

educational agency had already chosen an approved charter operator that was poised

to take over) and that the local educational agency had communicated with the RSD

and BESE throughout the process, keeping them informed of its plans.

Dr. Schooler testified that she explained to Mr. Stroder that the decision on

the best solution for Baker Heights and Baker Middle would be made after

consideration of all factors, including BSS' s proposed reconstitution plan, school

visits, and multiple meetings and phone conversations with leadership. In addition,

Dr. Schooler testified that she specifically informed Mr. Stroder that the decision

would probably be made in March or April. Further, although BSS was required

under the law to submit a reconstitution plan for its failed schools, it was made clear

to Mr. Stroder from the very beginning that the schools were eligible for and being

considered for transfer to the RSD based on the fact that they have been labeled

academically unacceptable for more than four consecutive years.

Dr. Schooler testified that she first learned that the School Board was

considering a vote to close Baker Heights and Baker Middle two days before the

special meeting, when one of her team members happened to see the published

agenda.
Concerned that the actions being considered by the School Board were not

in the best interests of the students and were simply an attempt by BSS to circumvent

the process to avoid a takeover of the schools by BESE, Dr. Schooler sent the cease

and desist letter to Mr. Stroder and the School Board members prior to the meeting.
Dr. Schooler explained that " the last thing we want are our school districts

circumventing the process and getting around the actual part that we feel could help

our students."
When she and Dr. Brumley were finally able to meet with Mr. Stroder

almost a month later, they made one last attempt to reach an agreement that would

be appropriate for the schools and school system, which she testified would involve

contracting with a charter operator to operate Baker Heights and Baker Middle.

However, Dr. Schooler testified that it was clear that the School Board was opposed

16

to the idea of a charter operator coming in, and Mr. Stroder told her and Dr. Brumley

at the March 7, 2025 meeting that " that probably would not happen, but he would

bring it back to the board and [ gauge] his board." After being informed by Mr.

Stroder that it would take a while to even get the board members together to vote on

the proposed agreement, and being doubtful that BSS ( the only failing school district

in the state) was " postured to really move forward and make decisions that are best.

for our students," Dr. Schooler elected to move forward with consideration of the

transfer of the schools to the RSD at BESE' s upcoming March 11 and 12 committee

and board meetings.

Thomas Lambert, the DOE' s Assistant Superintendent for Assessments,

Accountability, and Analytics, testified at the preliminary injunction hearing,

concerning the DOE' s process for school closures and relocations. According to

Mr. Lambert, when a school system is considering closing or consolidating schools

for the next academic year, it is required to consult the DOE before making a.

decision in order to understand what the academic ramifications would be from an.

accountability perspective. Thereafter, such requests are reviewed by the DOE " to

ensure that it is not a way to subvert accountability." Mr. Lambert testified that as

of the time of the preliminary injunction hearing, no request had been submitted by

BSS for either a closure, reconfiguration, or relocation of Baker Heights and Baker

Middle; however, he explained that if such a request is received, the DOE would

take into consideration the fact that merging several hundred students from failing,

schools into a school with approximately one hundred students would result in the

remaining school (Park Ridge) becoming a failing school eligible for transfer to the

N

At the conclusion of the April 21, 2025 hearing on the School Board' s request.

for a preliminary injunction, the trial court found that the School Board had proven.

a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits. The trial court rendered a.

17

judgment dated April 28, 2025, preliminarily enjoining DOE from exercising any

rights under the purported transfer of Baker Heights and/ or Baker Middle to the RSD

or interfering with Park Ridge' s operations at both 5903 and 5905 Groom Road

during the pendency of this matter.

The DOE filed a notice of intent to apply for supervisory writs and requested

that the trial court issue a stay of the preliminary injunction pending disposition of

the writ application pursuant to Uniform Rules of Courts of Appeal Rule 4- 4( A)' in

order to maintain the status quo and allow for the orderly administration of affairs

necessary for the upcoming school year. On May 7, 2025, the trial court signed an

order granting the stay of the preliminary injunction judgment pending disposition

of the DOE' s writ application by this Court.

The DOE also filed a motion for appeal of the April 28, 2025 judgment

pursuant to La. C. C.P. art. 3612, and further requested a stay of the preliminary

injunction judgment during the pendency of the appeal to maintain the status quo

and allow for the orderly administration of affairs necessary for the upcoming school
year.
The trial court granted the motion for appeal on May 7, 2025, and ordered that

the April 28, 2025 preliminary injunction judgment be suspended during the

pendency of the appeal.

Thereafter, on May 12, 2025, the trial court issued two orders, vacating the

portions of its May 7, 2025 orders granting the stay of the April 28, 2025 judgment

pending disposition of DOE' s writ application and suspending the April 28, 2025

judgment pending appeal.

In its supervisory writ application, the DOE sought a stay of the preliminary

injunction pending appeal, as well as reversal of the trial court judgment granting

7 Uniform Rules of Courts of Appeal Rule 4- 4( A) provides:

When an application for writs is sought, further proceedings may be stayed at the trial court' s
discretion. Any request for a stay of proceedings should be presented first to the trial court. The
filing of, or the granting of, a writ application shall not stay further proceedings unless the trial court
or the Court of Appeal expressly orders a stay.

the preliminary injunction. A writ panel of this Court denied the DOE' s request that

we exercise our supervisory jurisdiction to suspend or stay the preliminary

injunction. However, to the extent that the writ application sought supervisory

review of the merits of the preliminary injunction, that portion of the writ was

referred to the appeal panel. City of Baker School Board v. Board of Elementary

and Secondary Education, 2025- 0448 ( La.App. I Cir. 5/ 30/ 25) ( unpublished action).

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

On appeal, the DOE raised three assignments of error:

1. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to vacate its order suspending the

preliminary injunction judgment during appeal.

2. The trial court erred in overruling the DOE' s objection to proceeding without

BESE fully joined.

3. The trial court erred in granting the preliminary injunction against the DOE.

DISCUSSION

Jurisdiction to Convert to Devolutive Appeal

In their first assignment of error, the DOE argues that the trial court erred in

converting its suspensive appeal to a devolutive appeal, since the trial court had

already been divested of jurisdiction over all matters in the case reviewable under

the appeal at the time the trial court signed the May 12, 2025 order vacating portions

of its prior appeal order.

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 3612( B) provides that "[ a] n appeal

may be taken as a matter of right from an order or judgment relating to a preliminary

or final injunction, but such an order or judgment shall not be suspended during the

pendency of an appeal unless the court in its discretion so orders." In Killeen v.

Jenkins, 98- 2675, p. 4 ( La. 11/ 5/ 99), 752 So.2d 146, 148 ( per curiam), the Louisiana

Supreme Court held that in those cases where the trial court has granted a stay of

further proceedings in a matter involving a preliminary injunction pursuant to La.

19

C. C. P. art. 3612( B), the appeal is in the nature of a suspensive appeal, but where the

trial court has declined to grant a stay in a preliminary injunction matter, the appeal

is in the nature of a devolutive appeal. In this case, the trial court exercised its

discretion to suspend the preliminary injunction judgment during the pendency of

the appeal, effectively granting a suspensive appeal pursuant to La. C.C. P. art.

3612( B).

Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 2088 provides:

A. The jurisdiction of the trial court over all matters in the case
reviewable under the appeal is divested, and that of the appellate court
attaches, on the granting of the order of appeal and the timely filing of
the appeal bond, in the case of a suspensive appeal, or on the granting
of the order of appeal, in the case of a devolutive appeal. Thereafter,

the trial court has jurisdiction in the case only over those matters not
reviewable under the appeal, including the right to do any of the

following:

1) Allow the taking of a deposition, as provided in Article 1433.

2) Extend the return day of the appeal, as provided in Article 2125.

3) Make, or permit the making of, a written narrative of the facts of the
case, as provided in Article 2131.

4) Correct any misstatement, irregularity, informality, or omission of
the trial record, as provided in Article 2132.

5) Test the solvency of the surety on the appeal bond as of the date of
its filing or subsequently, consider objections to the form, substance,
and sufficiency of the appeal bond, and permit the curing thereof, as
provided in Articles 5123, 5124, and 5126.

6) Grant an appeal to another party.

7) Execute or give effect to the judgment when its execution or effect
is not suspended by the appeal.

8) Enter orders permitting the deposit of sums of money within the
meaning of Article 4658.

9) Impose the penalties provided by Article 2126, or dismiss the
appeal, when the appellant fails to timely pay the estimated costs or
the difference between the estimated costs and the actual costs of the
appeal.

10) Set and tax costs, expert witness fees, and attorney fees.

20

11) Amend a judgment to provide proper decretal language in
accordance with Article 1918 or 1951.

12) Repealed by Acts 2025, No. 250, § 4.

B. In the case of a suspensive appeal, when the appeal bond is not timely
filed and the suspensive appeal is thereby not perfected, the trial court
maintains jurisdiction to convert the suspensive appeal to a devolutive
appeal, except in an eviction case.

The May 7, 2025 order granting an appeal and suspending the judgment.

pending appeal divested the trial court ofjurisdiction over all matters reviewable on

appeal. As none of the exceptions set forth in La. C. C. P. art. 2088 are applicable,

the trial court lacked jurisdiction to later vacate portions of that appeal order, and the

May 12, 2025 order is a nullity. See Louisiana -Annunciation Condominium

Association, Inc. v. Kennedy, 2023- 0327, pp. 8- 9 ( La.App. 4 Cir. 11/ 16/ 23), 377

So. 3d 804, 811 ( where the city court signed an order granting the appeal, it divested

itself of jurisdiction and lacked authority to later deny the appeal by altering the

appeal order); see also Bond v. Louisiana Purchase Equestrian Estates, LLC, 2019-

0957, p. 7 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 2/ 21/ 20), 299 So. 3d 120, 125 ( any order or judgment

rendered after the trial court' s jurisdiction has been divested by the granting of an

appeal is null). Accordingly, the trial court' s May 12, 2025 order vacating portions

of its May 7, 2025 order granting the DOE' s appeal is vacated.

Merits ofthe Preliminary Injunction

The DOE also argues on appeal that the trial court erred in granting the

preliminary injunction on the merits because BESE' s actions in transferring Baker

Heights and Baker Middle to the RSD were constitutionally and statutorily

authorized and because the School Board cannot prove irreparable harm.

A preliminary injunction is an interlocutory procedural device designed to

preserve the status quo between the parties, pending a trial on the merits. Generally,

plaintiffs seeking the issuance of a preliminary injunction bear the burden of

establishing by a preponderance of the evidence a prima facie showing that they will

21

prevail on the merits and that irreparable injury or loss will result without the

preliminary injunction. Hill, 2014- 1757 at p. 18, 175 So. 3d at 1002. However, a

threat of irreparable injury need not be shown when the deprivation of a

constitutional right is at issue or when the act sought to be enjoined is unlawful. Hill,

2014- 1757 at p. 18, 175 So.3d at 1002. The only issues to be considered at a hearing

on a preliminary injunction are whether the moving party has met its burden of

proving that it is entitled to the relief sought as a matter of law and the likelihood

that it will likely prevail on the merits of the case. Morris v. Trust Technologies,

LLC, 2018- 0831, p. 5 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 2/ 28/ 19), 274 So. 3d 15, 19.

Although the judgment on the preliminary injunction is interlocutory, a party

aggrieved by a judgment either granting or denying a preliminary injunction is

entitled to an appeal. La. C. C. P. art. 3612( B); Hill, 2014- 1757 at p. 18, 175 So. 3d.

at 1002. We are, however, mindful that appellate review of a trial court' s issuance

of a preliminary injunction is limited. The issuance of a preliminary injunction

addresses itself to the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on

review unless a clear abuse of discretion has been shown. Hill, 2014- 1757 at pp. 18-

19, 175 So. 3d at 1002. However, the application of the abuse of discretion standard.

of review is based upon a conclusion that the trial court committed no error of law

and was not manifestly erroneous or clearly wrong in making a factual finding that.

was necessary to the proper exercise of its discretion. Legal issues regarding the

grant or denial of a preliminary injunction are reviewed de novo on appeal. UMB

Bank, National Association v. Swafford, 2023- 0245, p. 4 ( La.App. 4 Cir. 11/ 7/ 23),

377 So. 3d 347, 350.

In order to be entitled to a preliminary injunction, the School Board was

required to make a prima facie showing that it will prevail on the merits. In its suit

for declaratory judgment, the School Board sought a declaration that BESE did not

have the authority to transfer Baker Heights and Baker Middle to the RSD under La.

22

R.S. 17: 10. 5 because the School Board had already voted to close those schools.

The School Board urges that it was not required to prove irreparable injury in order

to obtain a preliminary injunction because it alleged the deprivation of a

constitutional right or that the act sought to be enjoined is unlawful.

In finding that the School Board was entitled to the issuance of a preliminary

injunction, the trial court reasoned:

A] 11 that this court is required to look at is the substantial likelihood of
prevailing on the merits. I think [ the School Board] has put forth

enough evidence to show that this is a high possibility.

Clearly ... if I' m looking at this statute right, the Baker City School
Board acted in good faith in that they, number one, they presented a
plan of failed schools that BESE did not act on and should have acted
on. If they had acted on this, then we' re not here....

Second, they did present a reconstitution plan.... They waited, they
tried to coordinate with BESE and no response.

Furthermore, [ the School Board] has put forth evidence of similar
situations where the [ DOE] and/ or BESE ... worked with parishes

previously and been allowed to do what [ BSS] wants to do and is
currently doing.

So, for those reasons, I' m going to grant the relief as prayed for by [the
School Board].

Thus, it is clear that the trial court based its finding that the School Board.

showed a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits on its interpretation of

La. R.S. 17: 10. 5 to mean that once the School Board submitted a reconstitution plan.

to BESE (as required under the school accountability system for every academically

unacceptable school, regardless of how many years the school has been labeled.

academically unacceptable'), BESE was required to explicitly reject that plan before

transferring the failing schools to the jurisdiction of the RSD. Our review of the

plain language of the statute reveals no such requirement.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 17: 10. 5 provides, in pertinent part:

8 See LAC 28: X1. 1603( A).

23

A. ( 1) An elementary or secondary school operating under the
jurisdiction and direction of any city, parish, or other local public school
board or any other public entity which is academically unacceptable
under a uniform statewide program of school accountability established
pursuant to rules adopted by the State Board of Elementary and
Secondary Education under authority of law, referred to in this Section
as " the state board", shall be designated as a failed school. When a city,
parish, or other local public school board or other public entity: ( a) fails
to present a plan to reconstitute the failed school to the state board, as
required pursuant to such an accountability program, or (b) presents a
reconstitution plan that is unacceptable to the state board, or (c) fails at
any time to comply with the terms of the reconstitution plan approved
by the state board, or (d) the school has been labeled an academically
unacceptable school for four consecutive years, the school shall be
removed from the jurisdiction of the city, parish, or other local public
school board or other public entity and transferred to the jurisdiction of
the Recovery School District established in R.S. 17: 1990, provided the
state board approves the transfer. ( emphasis added).

Words and phrases of a statute shall be read with their context and shall be

construed according to the common and approved usage of the language. La. R.S.

1: 3. Unless it is otherwise clearly indicated by the context, whenever the term " or"

is used in the Revised Statutes, it is used in the disjunctive and does not mean

and/ or."
La. R.S. 1: 9. When the wording of a statute is clear and free of ambiguity,

the letter of it shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit. La.
R. S. 1: 4. In addition to the absence of any requirement that BESE explicitly reject

a school system' s reconstitution plan, the use of the disjunctive " or" after each

numbered criteria for transfer makes it clear that the failing school may be

transferred to the jurisdiction of the RSD if any one of the criteria for transfer exists.

It is undisputed that Baker Heights and Baker Middle were eligible for transfer to

the RSD under criteria 4, based on their status as failing schools for more than four

consecutive years. Accordingly, the trial court erred as a matter of law in

interpreting the statute to add an additional requirement not included by the
legislature.

The School Board sought a declaration that BESE did not have the authority
to transfer Baker Heights and Baker Middle to the jurisdiction of the RSD under La.

0MI

R.S. 17: 10. 5 because the School Board had already voted to close the schools, as

well as a declaration that BESE' s purported transfer of the property located at 5903

Groom Road to the RSD for its unrestricted use was unlawful in that it violated the

business affairs provision of La. Const. art. VIII, § 3( A).

Article VIII, § 3( A) of the Louisiana Constitution provides:

Section 3. ( A) Creation; Functions. [ BESE] is created as a body
corporate.
It shall supervise and control the public elementary and
secondary schools and special schools under its jurisdiction and shall
have budgetary responsibility for all funds appropriated or allocated by
the state for those schools, all as provided by law. [ BESE] shall have
other powers, duties, and responsibilities by this
as provided

constitution or by law, but shall have no control over the business
affairs of a city, parish, or other local public school board or the
selection or removal of its officers and employees; however, [ BESE]
shall have the power to supervise, manage, and operate or provide for
the supervision, management, and operation of a public elementary or
secondary school which has been determined to be failing, including
the power to receive, control, and expend state funds appropriated and
allocated pursuant to Section 13( B) of this Article, any local
contribution required by Section 13 of this Article, and any other local
revenue available to a school board with responsibility for a school
determined to be failing in amounts that are calculated based on the
number of students in attendance in such a school, all in the manner
provided by and in accordance with law.

The School Board contends that by attempting to transfer Baker Heights and
Baker Middle to the RSD ( including unrestricted use of the school buildings

associated with those schools) when the School Board had already voted to relocate

the schools to their prior campuses and close the schools, BESE exceeded its

authority and violated the business affairs provision of Article VIII, § 3( A), which

prohibits BESE from exercising control over the business affairs of a city, parish, or
other local public school board.

The Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the limitations imposed on BESE' s

power by the business affairs provision in Eiche v. Louisiana Board ofElementary
and Secondary Education, 582 So.2d 186:

The second sentence of [Article VIII, § 3( A)] provides BESE
shall supervise and control the public elementary and secondary
schools ...
as provided by law." In Aguillard v. Treen, 440 So. 2d 704,

25

708 ( La. 1983), and Board ofElementary and Secondary Education v.
Nix, 347 So. 2d 147 ( La. 1977), we explained the phrase " as provided by
law" indicated BESE' s powers of supervision and control were not
unfettered nor self-executing, but arose from, and were subject to, laws
passed by the legislature. Article VIII, § 10 recognizes the existence of
parish and city school boards " subject to control and supervision by
BESE] and the power of the legislature to enact laws affecting them."
Taken as a whole, these sections make the local school boards subject
to BESE' s powers to exercise supervision and control over the public
schools, which in turn are pursuant to laws passed by the legislature.

Nonetheless, plaintiffs contend BESE' s powers of supervision
and control are limited by the third sentence of art. VIII, § 3. We
disagree. By its clear language, the third sentence is only a limitation
on BESE' s other powers, not on its powers of supervision and control:
t]he board shall have other powers, duties and responsibilities as
provided by this constitution or by law, but shall have no control over
the business affairs of a parish or city school board or the selection or
removal of its officers and employees." The third sentence

contemplates that the constitution or the legislature may allow BESE to
exercise other powers in addition to supervision and control over the
schools.
However, the constitution provides that in exercising these
other powers, BESE may not control the local board' s business affairs
nor the selection or removal of its employees. The limitation is clearly
directed only at the other powers of BESE and not to the powers of
supervision and control as provided by law, set forth in the second
sentence of art. VIII, § 3. Further, such an interpretation is in harmony
with art. VIII, § 10, which specifically makes the local school boards
subject to" supervision and control by BESE. By contrast, under
plaintiffs' interpretation, BESE' s ability to exercise supervision and
control over the schools pursuant to legislative mandate would be
greatly restricted, since nearly any action by BESE regarding teachers
could directly or indirectly result in some control by it over the selection
or removal of teachers. We do not believe art. VIII intended to create
such an anomalous situation. Rather, we find the limitation [ the

business affairs provision] was intended to keep BESEfrom interfering
with matters ofpurely local concern, such as business activities, which
fall outside ofthe scope ofsupervision and control ofthe schools. Thus,
we conclude that when BESE exercises its powers of supervision and
control over the schools pursuant to a legislative mandate, it is not
bound by the limitation in the third sentence.

Eiche, 582 So.2d 186, 189 ( La. 1991) ( footnotes omitted) ( emphasis added
and original).

The business affairs provision of Article VIII, § 3( A) is further limited by the

provision regarding failing schools that immediately follows it:

BESE] shall have other powers, duties, and responsibilities as

provided by this constitution or by law, but shall have no control over
the business affairs of a city, parish, or other local public school board
or the selection or removal of its officers and employees; however,

26

BESE] shall have the power to supervise, manage, and operate or

provide for the supervision, management, and operation of a public
elementary or secondary school which has been determined to be
failing, including the power to receives control, and expend state funds
appropriated and allocated pursuant to Section 13( B) of this Article,
any local contribution required by Section 13 of this Article, and any
other local revenue available to a school board with responsibilityfor
a school determined to befailing in amounts that are calculated based
on the number of students in attendance in such a school, all in the
manner provided by and in accordance with law.

La. Const. art. VIII, § 3( A) (emphasis added).

Along with this constitutional provision authorizing BESE to " supervise,

manage, and operate or provide for the supervision, management, and operation [ of'

failing schools] in the manner provided by and in accordance with law," which was
added to Article VIII, § 3( A) by amendment in 2003, the legislature passed several

statutes that went into effect upon approval of the amendment, including La. R.S.
17: 10. 5, which defines a failing school as one that had been designated as

academically unacceptable under a uniform statewide program of school

accountability established by rules adopted by BESE and provides for the transfer

of a failing school to the jurisdiction of the RSD upon approval by BESE, and La.
R.S. 17: 1990, which created the RSD and authorized it to provide for the

supervision, management, and operation of a school placed under its jurisdiction and

to use any school building recognized as part of the school prior to its transfer to the

jurisdiction of the RSD.
See United Teachers of New Orleans v. State Board of
Elementary & Secondary Education, 2007- 0031, pp. 5- 7 ( La.App. 1 Cir. 3/ 26/ 08),

985 So. 2d 184, 191.

In La. R.S. 17: 10. 1( B), the legislature mandated that BESE provide for a

school accountability system that includes, at a minimum:

clear and appropriate standards for schools and school districts,
indicators for the assessment of schools and school districts, student
achievement baselines, student growth targets, and appropriate

minimum levels of student achievement for each public school and
school district, rewards and corrective actions, specific intervals for

27

assessment and reassessment of schools and school districts, a review
process for evaluating growth targets, and technical assistance.

The school accountability system promulgated by BESE in accordance with the law

provides as follows for schools requiring reconstitution, i.e. any school labeled

academically unacceptable':

Districts shall notify [ BESE] of all school closures and reconstitution
by December 31 of the previous academic year. Notice shall include
requests for site code changes, grade reconfigurations, and attendance
zone changes. Requests to close schools after October I will not be
approved until the end of the current academic year.

LAC 28: XI.2301( A).

The School Board did not present any evidence that it submitted a request for

a site code change ( relocation of Baker Heights and Baker Middle), grade

reconfigurations ( merging Baker Heights and Baker Middle into a single school for

grades K-8),
attendance zone changes, or to close the schools prior to its February

121 2025 vote to relocate the schools to their prior (now abandoned) campuses and

to close the schools at the end of the school year as required by the school

accountability program. As BESE' s promulgation of the rule set forth in LAC

28: XI.2301( A) is an exercise of its powers of supervision and control over the

schools pursuant to a legislative mandate, it is not bound by the limitation in the
business affairs provision. See Eiche, 582 So. 2d at 190. Accordingly, the School

Board has not shown a substantial likelihood that it will prevail on the merits of its

claim that BESE did not have the authority to transfer Baker Heights and Baker

Middle to the jurisdiction of the RSD under La. R.S. 17: 10. 5, because the School

Board had already voted to close the schools, or that BESE' s purported transfer of

the property located at 5903 Groom Road to the RSD for its unrestricted use pursuant

to La. R.S. 17: 1990( B)( 4)( a) was unlawful in that it violated the business affairs

provision of La. Const. art. VIII, § 3( A).

9 See LAC 28: XI. 1603.

28

As we do not find that the School Board carried its burden of proving a

substantial likelihood of success on the merits, the trial court' s issuance of a

preliminary injunction was in error, and we need not consider whether the School

Board proved that irreparable injury or loss would result without the preliminary

injunction. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court granting the School Board' s

request for a preliminary injunction against the DOE is reversed, and this matter is

remanded to the trial court for additional proceedings. lo,"

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein, the May 12, 2025 trial court order vacating;

portions of its May 7, 2025 appeal order is vacated, the April 28, 2025 judgment

granting a preliminary injunction is reversed, and the supervisory writ application is

denied as moot. Costs of this appeal, in the amount of $937. 00, are assessed to

plaintiff a
- ppellee, the City of Baker School Board.

MAY 129 2025 ORDER VACATED; APRIL 28, 2025 JUDGMENT
REVERSED; WRIT DENIED AS MOOT.

to As we have reversed the judgment before us on appeal, we pretermit consideration of the DOE' s assignment of
error concerning the nonjoinder of BESE.

Given our reversal of the issuance of the preliminary injunction on appeal, the DOE' s application for supervisory
review is denied as moot.

29