The Trump administration and Louisiana officials have successfully lifted a decades-old school desegregation order in DeSoto Parish, marking the second such dismissal in their campaign to end what they describe as outdated court mandates across the state.

A federal judge on Monday approved a joint motion from Louisiana and the U.S. Justice Department to dismiss a 1967 lawsuit affecting the DeSoto Parish school district, which serves approximately 5,000 students in northwestern Louisiana. The dismissal represents another milestone in the Justice Department’s recent efforts to overturn desegregation cases it had previously championed.

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill expressed gratitude to President Donald Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi for their assistance. “DeSoto Parish has its school system back,” Murrill stated. “For the last 10 years, there have been no disputes among the parties, yet the consent decree remained.”

The case originated in 1967 when the Justice Department sued DeSoto Parish to dismantle its racially segregated school system. This legal action resulted in a 1970 court order requiring the district to eliminate segregation and provide regular progress reports on its integration efforts. Though the order underwent several modifications throughout the decades, there had been minimal court activity in recent years.

In their December 30 court filing requesting dismissal, Louisiana and Trump administration officials argued the order had outlived its purpose. “While this case has been pending for over a half-century, there has been no dispute among the parties since 2014,” they wrote. “The parties thus are no longer adverse, and there is no case or controversy.”

U.S. District Judge S. Maurice Hicks Jr., a George W. Bush appointee, granted the motion, effectively ending federal oversight of the district’s desegregation efforts after more than 50 years.

State officials have consistently maintained that these court orders impose undue burdens on school districts. Districts operating under desegregation orders typically must obtain court approval for various operational decisions, including constructing new schools, modifying attendance boundaries, or implementing policy changes related to the original court mandates.

However, civil rights advocates argue these orders remain necessary to combat the persistent effects of racial discrimination in education. They contend that federal oversight ensures districts maintain progress toward fully integrated school systems.

Throughout the years under court supervision, DeSoto Parish frequently sought approval for various changes, including the implementation of new attendance zones in 2014 that remain operational today. The district regularly filed status reports documenting the racial composition of its student body and teaching staff, along with data on student transfers. Its most recent compliance report was submitted in October.

The dismissal in DeSoto Parish follows a similar action in Plaquemines Parish, where Louisiana Republicans working with Trump’s Justice Department successfully terminated a 1966 desegregation order. In that instance, the lawsuit had remained dormant for decades after the presiding judge died in the 1970s.

Not all efforts to overturn these orders have proceeded smoothly. In Concordia Parish, a federal court rejected a motion to dismiss a 1960s desegregation order, ruling that the district must first demonstrate it has completely eliminated segregation before federal oversight can end. State and federal officials are currently appealing this decision.

The Concordia case originated with Black families demanding access to previously all-white schools, highlighting the historical significance of these desegregation orders in dismantling legally enforced educational segregation in Louisiana.

The wave of dismissals represents a shift in federal policy regarding school desegregation oversight and reflects the current administration’s emphasis on returning control to local authorities. Critics worry this approach may jeopardize decades of progress toward educational equity, while supporters maintain that these districts have sufficiently addressed historical inequities and deserve autonomy in managing their educational systems.