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
6Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
LMSD Respondent's Brief

LMSD Respondent's Brief

Ratings: (0)|Views: 992|Likes:
Published by LMVUE
Lower Merion School District's response to Supreme Court writ of certiorari in Students Doe 1 et al vs. LMSD
Lower Merion School District's response to Supreme Court writ of certiorari in Students Doe 1 et al vs. LMSD

More info:

Published by: LMVUE on May 21, 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

06/14/2012

pdf

text

original

 
No. 11-1185
3Ju
t1tbe
"upteme
of
tbe
Q{ufteb
"tate'
STUDENT DOE 1,
et
al.,
Petitioners,
v.
LOWER MERION SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent.
On
Petition
For Writ
Of
Certiorari
To
The
United States
Court
OfAppealsFor
The Third
Circuit
BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT IN OPPOSITION
--------
ALLYSON
N.
Ho
JUDITH
E.
HARRIS
MORGAN,
LEWIS
&
Counsel
of
Record
BOCKIUSLLP
MORGAN,
LEWIS
&
BOCKIUS
LLP
1717 Main Street,
1701 Market
Street
Suite 3200Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103Dallas, Texas 75201215.963.5028214.466.4180jeharris@morganlewis.com 
CHRISTINA
JOY
F.
GRESE
MORGAN,
LEWIS
&
BOCKIUS
LLP
101
ParkAvenue
New York, New York 10178212.309.6082
Counsel
for
Respondent
 
1
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether
the
court of appeals erred
in
rejecting
an
Equal
Protection challenge based on
its
highlyfactbound review of a school redistricting plan
that
does
not
classify
students
based on race, does
not
userace to assign benefits or burdens to particular stu-dents, does
not have
a discriminatory purpose,
and
isnot applied
in
a discriminatory manner.
 
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE
OF
AUTHORITIES .................................
iii
STATEMENT....... ........... .... ................................. 1I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND....................... 2II. PROCEEDINGS BELOW.......... .......... ......
11
REASONS FOR DENYING
THE PETITION
..... 17I.
THE
THIRD CIRCUIT'S DECISIONDOES NOT CONFLICT WITH
SIONS OF
OTHER COURTS ............ .... .... 17II.
THE
THIRD CIRCUIT'S DECISIONDOES NOT CONFLICT WITH
THIS
COURT'S
CASES..
...... .............. ...... ... ....... 20
III.
THE
UNUSUAL CONTEXT
OFTHIS
"NOVEL" CASE MAKES
IT
A POORVEHICLE............ ...... .......... ...... ... ........... ... 29
Iv.
THE
COURT'S REVIEW
OF THIS
CASEAND RESOLUTION
OF
ANYPORTED CONFLICT
IS
UNLIKELY TOCHANGE
THE
OUTCOME....................... 31CONCLUSION.......... ........ .... ...... .... ................ ..... 33
T,
CASES
Adarand
Cons
200 (1995) ...
Brown
v.
BOal
(1954) ......... .
Bush
v.
'lkra, 5Citizens for BConsolidated
719 S.W.2d 3
Fisher
v.
Unive
213 (5th
Cir.
1536 (2012)
..
Gratz
v.
Grutter
v.
Bolli
Hart
v.
Commz
536
F.
Supp.
Lewis
v.
Ascen
F.3d 343 (5th
McLaurin
v.
OJ
637 (1950) ....
Parents Involz
Seattle
Scho,
(2007) .......... .
Perrea
v.
Cil
F.
Supp. 2d 6
Plessy
v.

Activity (6)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
LMVUE liked this
LMVUE liked this
LMVUE liked this
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)//-->