Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Lower Merion School District
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24747, 665 F.3d 524, 2011 WL 6292876 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A facially race-neutral government policy, such as a school assignment plan based on geography, is subject to rational basis review unless there is proof of a racially discriminatory purpose. Mere awareness of, or discussion about, racial demographics by decision-makers during the policy's formation does not, by itself, constitute a racially discriminatory purpose that would trigger strict scrutiny.
Facts:
- The Lower Merion School District decided to equalize student enrollment between its two high schools, Harriton and Lower Merion High School (LMHS), which required redrawing attendance zones.
- The District established several race-neutral goals for the redistricting, including equalizing enrollment, not increasing the number of buses, and basing decisions on current needs.
- A consulting firm identified community values for the redistricting process, which included exploring and cultivating racial and other forms of diversity.
- The District developed several redistricting scenarios, some of which were analyzed based on their projected impact on the number of African-American students at each high school.
- A neighborhood known as the 'Affected Area,' which had a high concentration of African-American families living near LMHS, was assigned to the more distant Harriton High School under the final plan, Plan 3R.
- Plan 3R assigned all students, regardless of race, based on their geographical residence, following a '3-1-1 Feeder Pattern' to promote educational continuity from elementary through high school.
Procedural Posture:
- Students Doe 1 through 9 filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Lower Merion School District, alleging racial discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
- The District Court denied the District’s Motion to Dismiss and later denied the District's Motion for Summary Judgment.
- The District Court conducted a nine-day bench trial.
- Following the trial, the District Court issued findings of fact, concluding that race was a motivating factor in the development of Plan 3R.
- The District Court then issued conclusions of law, holding that strict scrutiny was the appropriate standard of review but that Plan 3R was constitutional because it was narrowly tailored to serve compelling educational interests.
- The District Court entered judgment in favor of the Lower Merion School District.
- The Students Doe filed a timely appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a facially race-neutral school redistricting plan violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if decision-makers were aware of and discussed neighborhood racial demographics during its development, but the plan does not classify students by race and was not adopted with a racially discriminatory purpose?
Opinions:
Majority - Greenaway, Jr.
No, the school redistricting plan does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. A facially neutral plan that does not classify students by race or have a discriminatory purpose is properly reviewed under the rational basis test, not strict scrutiny. The decision-makers' mere awareness or consideration of race during the planning process does not automatically equate to a discriminatory purpose. The court found no evidence that Plan 3R was adopted 'because of' its effect on an identifiable racial group, but rather to achieve legitimate, race-neutral goals like equalizing enrollment, ensuring educational continuity, and minimizing transportation costs. Since Plan 3R is rationally related to these legitimate government interests, it is constitutional.
Concurring - Roth
No, the plan is constitutional, but it should have been reviewed under strict scrutiny. Because the school district's awareness of the racial make-up of neighborhoods was a factor in the assignment plan, this consideration is a parallel to considering the race of an individual, which triggers strict scrutiny. However, Plan 3R survives this heightened review because it is narrowly tailored to meet numerous race-neutral compelling interests, such as equalizing school populations, minimizing travel time, and maintaining educational continuity. The plan would have been adopted even without considering racial demographics, and the concurrent consideration of diversity does not invalidate it when these other compelling interests are present.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the threshold for applying strict scrutiny to facially neutral government actions. It establishes a significant distinction between a government actor being merely 'aware of' or 'considering' racial demographics and acting with a 'racially discriminatory purpose.' By setting a higher bar for plaintiffs to prove discriminatory intent, the ruling gives school districts more leeway to pursue integration and diversity goals through race-conscious, but not race-classifying, means like strategic site selection and attendance zoning. The case underscores that without an explicit racial classification or proof of intentional discrimination, courts will apply the highly deferential rational basis review.
Unlock the full brief for Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Lower Merion School District