Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Pacific Legal Foundation Brief

Pacific Legal Foundation Brief

Ratings: (0)|Views: 112 |Likes:
Published by LMVUE
Amicus Curae Brief to the United States Supreme Court in Students Doe vs LMSD.
Amicus Curae Brief to the United States Supreme Court in Students Doe vs LMSD.

More info:

Published by: LMVUE on Apr 20, 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

06/01/2012

pdf

text

original

 
No. 11-1135
In
the
Ql:ourt
of
tbe Wnfteb
STUDENT DOE
1,
et
al.,
Petitioners,
v.
LOWER MERIONSCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
On
Petition
for
Writ
of
Certiorarito
the
United
StatesCourtof
Appeals
for
the
Third
Circuit
BRIEF
AMICUS
CURIAE
OF
PACIFIC LEGAL
FOUNDATION
IN
SUPPORT
OF PETITIONERS
MERIEM
L.
HUBBARD*
*Counsel
of
Record
RALPH
W.
KASARDA
Of
Counsel
JOSHUA
P.
THOMPSON
Pacific
Legal Foundation
930
GStreet
Sacramento,
California 95814Telephone: (916) 419-7111Facsimile: (916) 419-7747E-mail: mlh@pacificlegal.orgE-mail: rwk@pacificlegal.orgE-mail: jpt@pacificlegal.org
Counsel for
Amicus
Curiae Pacific Legal Foundation
 
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether
a school
district
may
classify localneighborhoods on
the
basis
of
race
to
redistrictattendance
zones
in
an
effort
to
achieve
raciallybalanced
high
schools.
 
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
Page
QUESTION PRESENTED .
...
.
..
.
....
..
......
iTABLE OF AUTHORITIES
...
...
..
..
........
ivINTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ...
....
..
....
1INTRODUCTION ANDSUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..
......
..
...
2REASONS FORGRANTING THE PETITION ..
.......
.
..
. 5
I.
THIS COURT SHOULD DECIDETHAT STRICT SCRUTINYAPPLIES
TO
FACIALLYRACE-NEUTRAL REDISTRICTINGPLANS IMPLEMENTED
TO
ACHIEVE RACIALBALANCING AND DIVERSITY .
..
......
..
5
A.
The District Court's FindingsEstablish
That
the
District
Is
RaciallyBalancing
Its
Two High SchoolsBased Upon
the
Racial Classificationof Petitioners' Neighborhood
......
.
....
7B. The District
Has
No
Compelling
Interest
to Justify
Its
Race-Conscious Attendance Zones .
..
.
..
8
1.
The Constitution ProhibitsDiscrimination AgainstGroups,
as
Well
as
Individuals .
..
..
10
2.
Racial Balancing for
Its
OwnSake
Is
Not a Compelling Interest,
But Patently
Unconstitutional .....
11
iii
TABLE
OF
CONTENTs-Continued
C.
The
Race-Conscious Redistricting
Must
Be Examined Under the Narrow
Page
Tailoring
Prong
of Strict Scruti
ny
..
....
12II. REVIEW
IS
NECESSARYTO RESOLVE THE CONFLICTBETWEEN
THE
DECISION OF THECOURT BELOW AND THE FIFTHCIRCUIT'S DECISION
IN
LEWIS
V.
ASCENSION
PARISH
SCH. BD
.
......
13
III.
THE
ISSUES PRESENTED
BY
THEDISTRICT'S RACE-CONSCIOUSATTENDANCE ZONES ARE
DIFFERENT
THAN THE ISSUESPRESENTED
IN
PARENTS
INVOLVED
AND
FISHER
V.
UNN.
OF
TEX.
AT
AUSTIN,
AND THUS SEPARATEREVIEW IS WARRANTED
..
......
.
....
. 17
A.
This Court's Decision
in
ParentsInvolved
Does Not Resolve
the
District's Use of NeighborhoodRacial Classifications to AchieveRacially Balanced High Schools . . . . . . . 17B.
Fisher
Concerns Diversity
in
Higher
Education, NotHigh School Attendance Zones .
...
....
19CONCLUSION
....
..
...
..
.
..
...
.........
..
21

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