Parents Involved In Community Schools v. Seattle School District

127 S.Ct. 2738 (2007)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ds voluntarily adopted student assignment plans that rely upon race to determine which public schools certain children may attend. Ds rely upon an individual student's race in assigning that student to a particular school. Seattle has never operated segregated schools and has never been subject to court-ordered desegregation. P is a nonprofit corporation comprising the parents of children who have been or may be denied assignment to their chosen high school in the district because of their race. The District Court granted summary judgment to D, finding that state law did not bar D's use of the racial tiebreaker and that the plan survived strict scrutiny on the federal constitutional claim because it was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. The Washington Supreme Court determined that the State Civil Rights Act bars only preferential treatment programs 'where race or gender is used by government to select a less qualified applicant over a more qualified applicant,' and not 'programs which are racially neutral, such as the [district's] open choice plan.' A panel of the Ninth Circuit then reversed the District Court, this time ruling on the federal constitutional question. D's use of the racial tiebreaker was not narrowly tailored to achieve these interests.

Jefferson had maintained a segregated school system and operated under court decree until 2000 when the District Court dissolved the decree. D then adopted the voluntary student assignment plan that requires all nonmagnet schools to maintain a minimum black enrollment of 15 percent and a maximum black enrollment of 50 percent. P sought to enroll her son, Joshua McDonald, in kindergarten. He resides a mile from the school, but it had no available space. Joshua was assigned to a school 10 miles from home. P alleged violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court found that D had asserted a compelling interest in maintaining racially diverse schools and that the assignment plan was narrowly tailored to serve that compelling interest. The Sixth Circuit affirmed in per curiam. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.