Doe v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist. - 665 F.3d 524 (3d Cir. 2011)

Rule:

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal laws, not equal results. Proof of racially discriminatory intent or purpose is required to show a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. When there is a proof that a discriminatory purpose has been a motivating factor in the decision, judicial deference is no longer justified and courts should apply strict scrutiny. However, absent a racially discriminatory purpose, explicit or inferable, on the part of the decisionmaker, the statutory distinction is subject only to rational basis review. The term "discriminatory purpose" implies that the decisionmaker selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part because of, not merely in spite of, the action's beneficial or adverse effects upon an identifiable group. Racially discriminatory purpose means that the decisionmaker adopted the challenged action at least partially because the action would benefit or burden an identifiable group. Even conscious awareness on the part of the decisionmaker that the policy will have a racially disparate impact does not invalidate an otherwise valid law, so long as that awareness played no causal role in the adoption of the policy.

Facts:

This case involves school redistricting in Lower Merion, Pennsylvania and allegations that the implemented redistricting plan violates the Equal Protection Clause. Here, the Lower Merion School District ("the District") used pristine, non-discriminatory goals as the focal points of its redistricting plan, Plan 3R. The District Court concluded that the District's assignment plan employing these goals required strict scrutiny because race was a factor in the formation of the plan, but concluded that the plan is constitutional because it does not use race impermissibly. 

Issue:

Was the District's school assignment plan constitutional?

Answer:

Yes

Conclusion:

Upon review, the court disagreed with the district court's determination that strict scrutiny was the appropriate level of review, but affirmed the conclusion that the district's school assignment plan was consonant with the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The court held that the plan passed constitutional muster because it did not select students based on racial classifications, it did not use race to assign benefits or burdens in the school assignment process, it did not apply the plan in a discriminatory manner, and it did not have a racially discriminatory purpose. Strict scrutiny did not apply. The appropriate test to determine the constitutionality of the district's school assignment plan was rational basis. The District presented evidence that the adopted plan was aimed at addressing the following goals: (a) equalizing the populations at two high schools, (b) minimizing travel time and transportation costs, (c) fostering educational continuity, and (d) fostering walkability. The plan was reasonably related to these four goals.