Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Students Doe Vs LMSD Writ of Certiorari

Students Doe Vs LMSD Writ of Certiorari

Ratings: (0)|Views: 39|Likes:
Published by LMVUE
Petition for Writ of Certiorari by Students Doe filed March 13, 2012
Petition for Writ of Certiorari by Students Doe filed March 13, 2012

More info:

Published by: LMVUE on Mar 14, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

04/23/2012

pdf

text

original

 
No. 11-I
N
 
THE
Supreme Court of the United States
O
N
P
ETITION
 
FOR
 
A
W
RIT
 
OF
C
ERTIORARI
 
TO
 
THE
U
NITED
S
TATES
C
OURT
 
OF
A
PPEALS
 
FOR
 
THE
T
HIRD
C
IRCUIT
A
(800) 274-3321 • (800) 359-6859
STUDENT DOE 1, BY AND THROUGH HIS PARENTS/ GUARDIANS DOES 1 AND 2; STUDENT DOE 2, BY  AND THROUGH HER PARENT/GUARDIAN DOE3; STUDENT DOES 3 AND 4, BY AND THROUGHTHEIR PARENT/GUARDIAN DOE 4; STUDENT DOE5, BY AND THROUGH HIS PARENTS/GUARDIANSDOE 5; STUDENT DOE 6, BY AND THROUGH HISPARENTS/GUARDIANS DOES 6 AND 7; STUDENTDOE 7, BY AND THROUGH HIS PARENT/GUARDIANDOE 8; STUDENT DOES 8 AND 9, BY AND THROUGHTHEIR PARENTS/GUARDIANS DOES 9 AND 10,
 Petitioners,v.
LOWER MERION SCHOOL DISTRICT,
 Respondent.
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
240526
D
 AVID
G. C. A 
RNOLD
Counsel of Record
920 Matsonford Road, Suite 106 West Conshohocken, PA 19428(610) 397-0722Davidgcarnold@aol.com
 Attorney for Petitioners
Dated: March 13, 2012
 
i
 QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
1. Whether the United States Court of Appeals forthe Third Circuit improperly overturned the UnitedStates District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania’s factual
nding that race was a factor inLower Merion School District’s, hereinafter referredto as “LMSD,” student redistricting in light of the factthat LMSD did not appeal the District Court’s adverseruling, in light of the fact that the District Court’sruling was not clearly erroneous, and in light of thefact that the Court of Appeals did not conduct thetype of expansive review required by this HonorableCourt’s decision in
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation
,429 U.S. 252 (1977)?2. Whether LMSD’s reasons for using race in itsredistricting decision-making constitute compellingstate interests?3. Whether LMSD proved at trial that it used racein its redistricting decision-making to address theachievement gap and racial isolation?4. Whether LMSD proved at trial that its race relatedredistricting actions were narrowly tailored to servea compelling state interest?5. Whether LMSD’s race related redistricting actionssurvive strict scrutiny because they are not limitedin duration?
 
ii
6. Whether LMSD preserved the defense that Plan 3R would have inevitably been adopted notwithstandingits race related redistricting actions?7. Whether LMSD proved at trial that Plan 3R wouldhave inevitably been adopted notwithstanding its racerelated redistricting actions?8. Whether the District Court properly allocated theburden of proof to Students Doe when making itsdeterminations concerning the Lower Merion HighSchool Walk Zone?9. Whether 42 U.S.C. §1981 and/or Title VI of theCivil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d
et.
 
seq.
prohibitLMSD’s race related redistricting actions even thoughthe Fourteenth Amendment to the United StatesConstitution may not?

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
LMVUE liked this
LMVUE liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->