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
Student Doe Supreme Court Reply Brief Copy

Student Doe Supreme Court Reply Brief Copy

Ratings: (0)|Views: 42 |Likes:
Published by LMVUE
Students Doe reply brief to LMSD Response in petition by Students Doe at US Supreme Court.
Students Doe reply brief to LMSD Response in petition by Students Doe at US Supreme Court.

More info:

Published by: LMVUE on May 29, 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

05/30/2012

pdf

text

original

 
I?retitiornePs,
v.
[[)ated:
May
25,
2{9:12
242108
 
ARGilltfENT
On
March
13, 2012,
Petitioners,
Students
Doe
1through
9,
hereinafter
referred
to as "Students Doe,"
filed
a Petition for a
Writ
of Certiorari with
this
Honorable
Court
in
order to appeal
the
United
States Court
of Appeals forthe
Third
Circuit's
ruling
entered on December 14,2011.
After
receiving
an
extension of time to file, Respondent,Lower Merion School District,
hereinafter
referred to
as "LMSD," filed its
Brief
in Opposition on May
16,
2012.Students Doe now file this Reply Brief in accordance withRule
15
of
the
Rules of
the
Supreme
Court
of
the
United
States
.Although Students Doe dealt with most of LMSD'sarguments
in
its Petition, LMSD's filing raises four points
that
need further,
brief
comment.
First,
on
page
10
ofits
Brief in
Opposition, LMSD essentially
admits
that
decision-makers
in
the
School District split
an
Mrican
American neighborhood, i.e.
the
Affected
Area
and
North
Ardmore,
in
order
to insure
that
both of its high schools,Lower Merion High School and Harriton High School, hadsignificant African American enrollment. This admissionis deeply troubling on a number of levels.Initially,
it
confirms what Students Doe have beenstating since filing
this
action in 2009, i.e.
that
African
American
students
are treated
differently
in
Lower
Merion simply because
they
are
African
American in
violation of
the
United
States
Constitution.
It
further
confirms Students Doe's position
that
their
assignment to
Harriton
High School was based on race, not geography.Moreover, LMSD's new position is
inconsistent with
LMSD's old position,
that
race
played no
part
in
its
 
2redistricting decision-making.
See
LMSD's
Third
CircuitBrief filed of record on
January
5,
2011,
at
pages
15
n.8,25,
31
-
41,
50, and 54-55.Furthermore, LMSD's admission
that
it
was engagingin racial balancing when
redistricting
its high schools hasconstitutional implications.
This
Honorable
Court
hasalready held
that
racial balancing is unconstitutional.
SeeParents Involved
in
Community
Schools
v.
Seattle SchoolDistrict
No.
1,
551
U.S.
701,
732 (2007) ("The principle
that
racial balancing is not
permitted
is one of substance,
not semantics. Racial
balancing
is
nottransformed
from
'patently
unconstitutional' to a compelling
state
interest
simply
by
relabeling
it
'racial diversity."'
Id.);
Grutter
v.
Bollinger,
539 U.S. 306, 330 (2003) (Outright
racial balancing
is
"patently
unconstitutional."
Id.).
Notwithstanding
the
foregoing,LMSD's admission
calls
into question
whether the Third
Circuit
wouldstill conclude
that
Students Doe and
the
District
Court
conflated
the
impact of
the
voluminous evidence presented
at
trial
demonstrating
that
LMSD engaged in race baseddecision-making. To
the
contrary, LMSD's admission
regarding
racial balancing simply confirms what is
stated
in
the
voluminous evidence Students Doe introduced
at
trial.Second, LMSD's
statements regardingthe
LowerMerion High School Walk Zone entirely gloss over
thetrue
walk zone issue
in
this case. While Students Doe maynot have lived in
the
walk zone
just
prior to redistricting
that
fact is irrelevant because
they
had the
right
to attendeither Lower Merion High School or Harriton High School
at
that
time, as did
their
similarly situated
peers
in NorthArdmore, and
their
similarly situated
peers
living in thewalk zone.
What
is relevantand post
redistrictin
;policy
in order to
tr
in
the
Affected AreaStudents in
the
AffeSchool
instead
of
Lov
Certiorari
pages
38-Superintendent's NoSchool
Director
whE
states
that
extendin;
Area
would
mean
mal
at
Harriton
High SclThird, LMSD's acandidate for review, :The case
squarely
pr1
racial balancing admi
that
this Honorable (years ago,
but
whichto date.
See Washing
458 U.S.
457,
472 n.
H
Third Circuit will
bethe Third
Circuit
im:r:
of
the
District Cour1decision-
making,
im
Court's factual
findi1
of review
required
u
v.
Metropolitan
Ho·
429
u.s.
252 (1977).:LMSD's
assertion
al:
Court's legal findings
are
not supported
by
and
that
the
redist:
durational
requirerr
Court's precedents. I

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)//-->