Business Law 16th Edition by Jane Mallor,James Barnes ,Arlen Langvardt,Jamie Darin Prenkert,Martin McCrory

Exercise 2

Public school districts in Seattle, Washington and Louisville, Kentucky faced litigation in which it was alleged that they violated the Equal Protection Clause by considering race when assigning students to schools. The Seattle district, which had neither created segregated schools nor been subject to courtordered desegregation, generally allowed students to choose which high school they wished to attend. However, the district classified students as white or nonwhite. It then used the racial classifications as a "tiebreaker" to allocate available slots in particular high schools and thereby seek to achieve racially diverse schools despite the existence of certain housing patterns that would have produced little racial diversity at certain schools. The Louisville district had been subject to a federal court's desegregation decree during a two-decades-long period, but a court had lifted the desegregation order after concluding that the district had eliminated the vestiges of prior segregation to the greatest extent feasible. The Louisville district then adopted a plan under which students were classified as black or "other." Using these classifications in making elementary school assignments and in ruling on transfer requests, the district sought to achieve racial diversity in schools that would have reflected less racial diversity in light of traditional housing patterns. The cases challenging the two districts' policies of considering race made their way through the federal courts and were later consolidated for decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.
What test would the Seattle and Louisville school districts need to pass in order to avoid a Supreme Court determination that their policies violate the Equal Protection Clause? Could the school districts pass that test? Why or why not?