## Facts

- A Pennsylvania public school district redrew school attendance boundaries and student assignments through a plan known as “Plan 3R” after facility changes and enrollment/capacity imbalances.
- The district adopted stated goals centered on equalizing enrollments, keeping schools at or under capacity, avoiding increased busing, offering limited grandfathering options for a graduating class, and basing decisions on current and anticipated needs rather than prior practices.
- During a multi-year process, officials and community participants discussed racial composition and reviewed the racial effects of proposed boundary configurations alongside factors such as enrollment, travel time, transportation costs, educational continuity, and walkability.
- The final plan used facially race-neutral criteria and did not assign individual students by explicit racial categories.
- Nine Black students (suing pseudonymously through parents/guardians) challenged the plan, alleging it violated the Equal Protection Clause because race was considered in development and the plan allegedly burdened Black students.
- The district court concluded strict scrutiny applied because race was a factor in forming the plan, but upheld the plan under strict scrutiny; the plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether strict scrutiny applies to a facially neutral student-assignment plan solely because decisionmakers discussed or considered race during its development.
2. Whether the plan violated equal protection by classifying students by race or being adopted with a discriminatory purpose.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the judgment upholding Plan 3R but rejected the district court’s application of strict scrutiny.
- The court held strict scrutiny was not triggered because the plan did not classify individual students by race and plaintiffs failed to show discriminatory purpose.
- Applying rational basis review, the court held the plan was constitutional because it rationally advanced legitimate objectives such as enrollment equalization, capacity management, transportation efficiency, and continuity.

## Legal Principles

- Strict scrutiny generally applies to governmental action that classifies individuals by race or is adopted with a discriminatory purpose; race awareness in deliberations, without more, does not itself create a racial classification.
- A facially race-neutral policy with no proven discriminatory intent is reviewed under rational basis even if its development included discussion of racial demographics; disparate impact alone is insufficient to establish an equal protection violation.
- To prove unconstitutional discrimination from a neutral policy, plaintiffs must show the policy was adopted “because of,” not merely “in spite of,” adverse effects on a racial group.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that a school district’s consideration of racial demographics while designing facially neutral attendance boundaries did not, by itself, require strict scrutiny; absent a racial classification or discriminatory purpose, the redistricting plan was subject to and satisfied rational basis review.


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