Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviews a summary judgment decision upholding the School District of Philadelphia’s 2022 admissions policy for four selective high schools. The court holds that the record contains sufficient evidence for a reasonable factfinder to find discriminatory purpose and impact, requiring strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. It vacates the judgment and remands for further proceedings to assess discriminatory purpose and impact.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether summary judgment was proper on the parents' Equal Protection challenge to the facially neutral admissions policy.
- Whether the record contained sufficient evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could find that the School District adopted the admissions policy with a racially discriminatory purpose.
- Whether the record contained sufficient evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could find that the admissions policy had a discriminatory impact.
- What forms of evidence may establish discriminatory impact when a facially neutral policy is challenged under the Equal Protection Clause.
Holdings
- A reasonable factfinder could conclude that the School District adopted the 2022 Admissions Policy, at least in part, with a racially discriminatory purpose.
- A reasonable factfinder could conclude that the Admissions Policy had a discriminatory impact by increasing Black and Hispanic students' chances of admission while decreasing Asian and white students' chances.
- Because genuine disputes of material fact existed as to both discriminatory purpose and discriminatory impact, the District Court could not resolve those issues on summary judgment.
- Statistically significant before-and-after changes in enrollment, qualified-applicant pools, or admissions success rates are relevant evidence of discriminatory impact, although they are not automatically sufficient in every case.
Key quotations
“Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the parents, there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the Admissions Policy had a discriminatory purpose and impact, requiring strict scrutiny.” (at 2)
“With these principles to guide our assessment of the zero-sum, competitive Admissions Policy at issue in this appeal, we hold that a reasonable factfinder could decide that:” (at 21)
“We join the Second Circuit in holding that, while evidence of an aggregate discriminatory impact may satisfy the “discriminatory impact” inquiry, it is not the only permissible form of proof.” (at 40)
“For those reasons, we will vacate and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.” (at 42)
Factual background
The Philadelphia School District changed admissions for four highly selective public high schools in 2022, replacing individualized admissions procedures with centralized criteria, a computer-scored writing exam, revised grade and attendance requirements, and a preference for applicants residing in six designated zip codes. Five of the six preferred zip codes had majority Black and Hispanic populations and relatively low Asian populations. The policy was adopted after District officials publicly committed to antiracism, racial equity, and increasing the proportion of qualified Black and Hispanic students toward the racial composition of the broader population. The record contained conflicting evidence about whether the policy was motivated by geographic access and objectivity or by an intent to alter the schools' racial composition.
Procedural history
The appellants sued after their children, who lived outside six preferred zip codes, met the new admissions criteria but were not admitted to their first-choice schools. After discovery, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that no reasonable factfinder could find discriminatory purpose or impact and applying rational-basis review. The Third Circuit vacated and remanded for factfinding on discriminatory purpose and discriminatory impact.
Remand instructions
Vacate the order granting summary judgment and remand for further proceedings, including factfinding on whether the School District adopted the Admissions Policy with discriminatory purpose and whether the Policy had discriminatory impact. The District Court may consider aggregate before-and-after data, qualified-applicant data, success rates, and individualized evidence of race-based harm.