New York City revised its admissions policy for the Specialized High Schools, specifically the Discovery Program, which reserves seats for economically disadvantaged students. The new policy expanded the reserved seats to 20 percent but added a requirement that students attend middle schools with a high Economic Need Index (ENI). Plaintiffs, including the Chinese American Citizens Alliance and parents of Asian-American students, sued alleging the policy violated the Equal Protection Clause because it was enacted with the intent to reduce the number of Asian-American students. The District Court granted summary judgment for the City, ruling that plaintiffs failed to show the policy caused an aggregate disparate impact on Asian-American students as a whole, even though the policy excluded many individual Asian-American students from eligibility. The Second Circuit noted that discovery on discriminatory intent was bifurcated and not yet conducted.
The Second Circuit emphasized that the Equal Protection Clause protects individuals, not just racial groups in the aggregate. The court clarified that while aggregate disparate impact is often used to prove discriminatory intent and effect, it is not the only way to establish a violation. Under Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., a plaintiff must show discriminatory intent and discriminatory effect. The court reasoned that if a facially neutral law is adopted with a discriminatory purpose, the requisite discriminatory effect can be satisfied by showing that specific individuals were harmed or excluded from a benefit based on their race. The court assumed, for the purpose of the appeal, that the policy was motivated by discriminatory intent because the district court had limited discovery on that issue. Under this assumption, the exclusion of Asian-American students from the Discovery Program because their schools did not meet the ENI threshold constituted a sufficient discriminatory effect. The court rejected the argument that the slight overall increase in Asian-American admissions to the schools as a whole negated the harm suffered by those specifically excluded. The court held that the district court erred in requiring proof of aggregate impact before allowing discovery on intent.
The decision vacates the district court's grant of summary judgment and remands the case for further proceedings. This allows plaintiffs to conduct discovery into the motives of the New York City Department of Education. If plaintiffs can prove discriminatory intent, the new admissions criteria will be subject to strict scrutiny review. The ruling clarifies that individual harm from a racially motivated policy is actionable even if the policy does not result in a net decrease in the racial group's overall representation.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download