Ardmore students challenge court ruling on Lower Merion redistricting
Nine South Ardmore students, who failed to convince a federal judge that Lower Merion's school redistricting plan was racially biased against them, have asked the court to overturn its own ruling.
Nine South Ardmore students, who failed to convince a federal judge that Lower Merion's school redistricting plan was racially biased against them, have asked the court to overturn its own ruling.
The motion was filed in federal court in Philadelphia Thursday by David G.C. Arnold, attorney for the nine pupils.
It called District Judge Michael M. Baylson's June 24 ruling flawed and asked him to grant a new trial or issue a new verdict.
"The plaintiffs believe that the court erred in its conclusion that the race-based redistricting plan was legally justified," said James Herbert, spokesman for the pupils and their parents.
If Baylson denies the motion, Herbert said, the plaintiffs will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia.
Halfway through the trial, which began in April, Baylson predicted an appeal, saying even experienced jurists were unclear on Supreme Court case law governing the matter.
"Good luck with the Third Circuit Court," he told the opposing parties.
Douglas Young, spokesman for the Lower Merion School District, reacted to Thursday's filing by e-mail: "The district will review the motion and respond appropriately."
Kermit Roosevelt, a University of Pennsylvania law professor, called the line of reasoning in the 21-page legal brief "interesting."
"I don't think Baylson will change his mind," Roosevelt wrote in an e-mail.
Baylson ruled that the district broke no laws when it imposed a redistricting plan that took away the students' choice of high school.
The pupils, who live in a diverse section of Ardmore, argued that their neighborhood had been singled out because of race. They were ordered to attend Harriton High School, a five-mile bus trip away. They preferred to walk to nearby Lower Merion High School.
The judge ruled that "racial balancing" if taken alone would have been illegal, but that the use of racial demographics in tandem with other factors, as occurred in Lower Merion, "has never been held unconstitutional."
Baylson also held that a Seattle school-redistricting case used as legal precedent in the discrimination case by the plaintiffs did not fit because it involved the reassignment of individuals, not neighborhoods.
And he said the district had met its legal burden to meet "race-neutral" interests by factoring into the plan the need for two equally sized schools, to limit travel time, and to foster educational continuity.
The district has maintained that geography and other factors drove the redistricting plan, and that when race was mentioned, it was only in the context of ensuring that minority students were not isolated.
In his Thursday brief, Arnold argued that the district had said all along that race was not used in redistricting and could not now say the use of race was appropriate.
Further, he said, a legal concept called "strict scrutiny," which forces government bodies to check themselves when using race to avoid discrimination, may have been misapplied.
"Lower Merion cannot survive a strict scrutiny challenge because it never articulated a compelling state interest related to its use of race in redistricting," Arnold wrote.
Lower Merion is building two $100 million high schools to replace outdated structures. Officials have said redistricting was needed because too few students live near Harriton and too many near Lower Merion High.
Roosevelt said he would welcome an appeal of Baylson's decision to get legal clarity in discrimination cases.
"An appeal is appropriate in this case, not because there's anything wrong with Judge Baylson's opinion, but because the law is so unclear in this area.
"It would be good to have the views of the Third Circuit. Eventually I think the Supreme Court will have to weigh in, either in this case or some other presenting the same issue.
"It's sent us very mixed signals so far, which makes things very hard for lower courts and also for school boards."