Smith v. Henderson
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68837
D.D.C.2013Background
- DCPS consolidates and reorients funding by closing 15 underutilized schools east of Rock Creek Park; plan aims to save $8.5 million and reallocate to other DCPS schools.
- Plaintiffs include guardians of children at closing schools and Advisory Neighborhood Commissioners who allege notice deficiencies and various statutory and constitutional violations.
- Final plan was revised after community input, keeping 5 closing schools open and changing student assignments to emphasize safety and walkability.
- East-of-Park closings disproportionately affect Black and Hispanic students; the closing schools had higher rates of special-education students and lower academic performance.
- The District represented the Mayor’s plan is final and ripe for review; Plaintiffs seek preliminary injunction to block implementation.
- The court will deny the injunction due to lack of likelihood of success on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of ANC Commissioners | Armstead and Black have procedural rights to challenge notice. | ANCs cannot sue in their official capacity; residents must sue. | ANC claims lack standing; dismiss for lack of standing. |
| Race-discrimination claims (Equal Protection/Title VI) | Plan has racially disparate impact and intentional discrimination. | Disparity explained by neutral, nondiscriminatory rationales; no proof of intent. | No likelihood of success on merits; no proven intentional race discrimination. |
| Disability-based claims (IDEA/ADA/Rehabilitation Act) | Closures violate rights of students with disabilities. | No exhaustion or direct denial of services; plan does not deny meaningful access. | Claims unlikely to succeed; exhaustion missing for IDEA; disparate-impact arguments insufficient. |
| D.C. Human Rights Act disparate impact | Closures disproportionately affect protected classes; unlawful effect. | Closures independently justified by non-discriminatory goals and cost savings. | Plan independently justified; DCHRA claim fails. |
| Sunshine Amendment | Decision-making not transparent as required by Sunshine Amendment. | Plaintiffs provide no facts; conclusory allegations insufficient. | Not considered; allegations inadequately supported. |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. NRDC, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (U.S. Supreme Court 2008) (preliminary injunction standard; likelihood of success and irreparable harm)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. Supreme Court 1992) (standing as irreducible constitutional minimum)
- Arlington Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (U.S. Supreme Court 1977) (discriminatory intent required for equal protection; disparate impact insufficient alone)
- Feeney, 442 U.S. 256 (U.S. Supreme Court 1979) (intent required for constitutional discrimination)
- Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (U.S. Supreme Court 2001) (Disparate-impact regulations do not govern private private actions)
- Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (U.S. Supreme Court 1985) (disparate-impact claims not permitted under § 12132 to succeed alone)
- Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (U.S. Supreme Court 1971) (employer burden to show job-relatedness for disparate-impact rules)
- Brown v. Bd. of Educ. of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (U.S. Supreme Court 1954) (racially segregated schools unconstitutional)
- Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (U.S. Supreme Court 1954) (federal government's segregation in schools unconstitutional)
- Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (U.S. Supreme Court 1960) (racially discriminatory redrawing of political boundaries)
- Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230 (U.S. Supreme Court 2009) (exhaustion under IDEA; parental relief specifics)
- Spurlock v. Fox, 2013 WL 1920918 (6th Cir. 2013) (contextual discussion on race-based school policy reasoning)