Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Lower Merion School District
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24747
3rd Cir.2011Background
- Lower Merion School District redistricted students under Plan 3R to equalize high school enrollments and reduce travel time within a non-discriminatory framework.
- Non-negotiables guided redistricting: equalized high school/middle school populations, capacity limits, no bus increase, grandfathering for class of 2010, focus on current/future needs rather than past practices.
- Plan 3R was the culmination of multiple Scenarios with the Affected Area (African-American concentration) and North Ardmore as principal geographic considerations.
- District Court held strict scrutiny applicable due to race-related considerations but found Plan 3R constitutional, applying rational basis review instead of strict scrutiny.
- Plaintiffs (Students Doe) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with Title VI and §1981 claims alleging race-based discrimination, and sought to restore their school choice; trial culminated in a nine-day bench trial and judgment for the District.
- This appeal challenges whether the district’s redistricting met constitutional scrutiny and whether the plan conformed to equal protection requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What level of scrutiny applies to Plan 3R? | Doe contends strict scrutiny. | District argues facially neutral plan allows rational basis review. | Strict scrutiny not applied; rational basis review governs Plan 3R. |
| Did Plan 3R discriminate on the basis of race or racially discriminatory intent? | Plaintiffs allege targeting Affected Area for Harriton due to race. | District asserts no racially discriminatory purpose; plan facially neutral. | No racially discriminatory classification or discriminatory purpose; plan passes under rational basis. |
| Does Plan 3R survive rational basis review given its goals? | Doubtful plan rationally related to legitimate interests. | Plan 3R rationally related to equalizing enrollments, minimizing travel, continuity, walkability. | Plan 3R rationally related to legitimate governmental interests. |
| Do Title VI and §1981 claims fail alongside EP claims? | Discriminate under federal civil rights statutes. | EP analysis applies; plan does not violate rights. | Coextensive with EP; claims fail for Plan 3R. |
Key Cases Cited
- Seattle School District No. 1 v. Parents Involved in Community Schools, 551 U.S. 701 (U.S. 2007) (strict scrutiny considerations in race-conscious plan; diversity versus balance terrain)
- Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (U.S. 2003) (diversity as compelling interest in admissions; race as factor in policy)
- Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (U.S. 2003) (strict scrutiny for race-based admissions policy with points system)
- Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1995) (strict scrutiny applies to race-conscious policies; facial neutrality not sufficient)
- City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1989) (strict scrutiny for racial classifications in contracting)
- Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (U.S. 1977) (requires sensitive inquiry into discriminatory purpose when race is motivator)
- Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499 (U.S. 2005) (racial classifications in assignment plans; strict scrutiny if classifications exist)