WPCߕ 7vy:%4k XahVƖHL$.(lvʙV"1Z"#ܥ(I=4I^pN"Tn}|`&N) _r 82w:{7^%(iul ޳":Xl5qF!LqgY!{|xeLrN^@58p-U+O13nm"-"D?dѬfCбZpގ/ b F'H[7xePoGYp܉p>^CFp>gS&1}AӰ.|e裵wM9˩&6@6!@2D?7UIR؏?;rFa7R{ v׃v=0>uSŷGH2JJH,)sSErɮy}$ "Vtn%FlT/# % 0D 0GU: 0RU"87nToNUNU F^ Ywe4i}Efa m 0U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0[ 02 0C 0I 0  0 0 0 0^ 0& 0 B 0@ 0! 0! 0" 0{# 0F$ 0% 0% 0& 00R' 0<' 0' 0>|( 0v( 0`0) 0`) 0`) 0`P* 0`* 08+ 0H+ 02, 0L, 0:H- 0Y- 0_- 0 :. 0jD/ 00 B*22 D/\2 D+2 02 D/:4 0i4 0675 0m5 0:u6 0^6 0< 7 1eI7U67U>7U*"8 1uL8 728N8^8UBS9b99B\@ @@AADtF SJeJ McQkSnZ[+\b e#ee e e yf fUF g>QgQgIi ooOooo#ArArdududududu \y ryy|~CFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF 0c|HP LaserJet 5,,,,0X(#$  0  ($XXXX<6X9`("Courier NewTT(:2$ !XXXX  =*-Xdd=      0  <4 9Z+ Courier New <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@vr Z6Times New Roman Regular<4 9Z+.Courier New Regularn0s fq06X:i+003|x7TABLE AU*+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5   d( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSR\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSR\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSR\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7F(X7  ?S%2A`Arial?  SR\  `&Times New RomanS7G(X7&  d dE)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7I(X7  ?S%2A`Arial?  SR\  `&Times New RomanS7G(X7E)2dxd0KS.SampleKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSR\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSR\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   !"#$% 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Ti)L:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- -  $XXXX=*-Xdd=      17    _=*-XXdXd=SeeRegentsofUniv.ofCal.v._Bakke_,438U.S.265,31112  &319(1978)(notingthata"diversestudentbody...isa  constitutionallypermissible%  %%  %goalforaninstitutionofhigher \ education"butstrikingdownatwotrackmedicalschooladmissions 2 systemthatused"explicitracial_classification[s_]")(opinionof X Powell,J.);_Gratz_v.Bollinger,539U.S.244(2003)(strikingdown . asnotnarrowlytailoredanundergraduateadmissionssystemthat   automaticallyawardedtwentypointsinadmissionsscoringto   membersofunderrepresentedethnicandracialminoritygroups); `  _Grutter_v.Bollinger,539U.S.306,334&328(2003)(holdingthat 6   "[_u]niversities_Ԁcan...considerraceorethnicitymoreflexibly  \  asa'plus'factorinthecontextofindividualizedconsideration  2  ofeachandeveryapplicant"andthatadiversestudentbodyisa   sufficientlycompellinginteresttojustifysuchuseofrace). WessmanLesagePayzantciteas((Cite as: 539 U.S. 306, *326, 123 S.Ct. 2325, **2338)  $XXXX=*-Xdd=      15    _=*-XXdXd=ThiscounciladvisestheMassachusettsCommissionerof  EducationandtheMassachusettsBoardofEducationonissues  relatedtothedevelopmentandmaintenanceofschooldesegregation \ andintegrationinpublicschoolswithintheCommonwealth.Muchof 2 thatcommunicationandtestimonyrelatedtoBPS'seligibilityfor X fundingundertheRacialImbalanceLaw.Seefootnote16,infra.  $XXXX=*-Xdd=      19    _ XXXX=*-XXdXd=Specifically,intermsofnetnumbers,plaintiffsshowedthat  eightfewerwhitestudentswereadmittedtotheMurphySchoolunder  theNewPlan's50%walkzonepreferenceascomparedtoa100%walk \  zonepreference;threefewerattheMozartSchool;andtwofewerat  theLyonSchool.#XXX X# j $XXXX=*-Xdd=      22    _=*-XXdXd=ThesesevenplaintiffswereNicholasAnderson,_Kayleigh_  BarryMeltzer,Michael_Gattozzi_,KathleenMcCoy,John_O'Toole_,  Andrew_Sharaffa_,andThomas_Stoddard_.Thethreeremaining \ plaintiffsJohn_Feeney_,JamieLeeHiggins,andSean_Stoddard_Ԅ 2 failedtoattestthattheyintendedtoreapplyforplacement.SDU_51  $XXXX=*-Xdd=      12    _=*-XXdXd=Althoughthedistrictcourtneverexplicitlydescribedthe  OldPlanasunconstitutional,itawardednominaldamagestotwo  plaintiffswhohadbeendeniedschoolassignmentsundertheOld \ Planbecauseoftheirrace;andnominaldamagesinthiscontext 2 requireaconstitutionalviolation.Sincethedefendantsneither X appealedfromtheawardnorsoughttodefendtheconstitutionality . oftheOldPlan,weacceptforpurposesofouranalysisthe   colorablepremisethattheOldPlanwasunconstitutional.  $XXXX=*-Xdd=      18    _=*-XXdXd=WalshhasaMaster'sDegreeinmathematicsandwasenrolled  inlawschoolwhilethetrialwasongoing._BCF_ԀIV,260F.Supp.2d  at328.Shealsowas"acoupleofcoursesshortaMaster'sDegree \ incomputerscience."Id.(quotingthetrialtranscript).Walsh 2 "hasneverworkedasastatistician,"id.,andapparentlylacks X formaltraininginthatarea. Y $XXXX=*-Xdd=      1    _=*-XXdXd=AlloftheplaintiffshereresideintheEastZone.While  plaintiffschallengedtheAttendanceZoneconceptearlierinthis  litigation,theydonotpressanyclaimrelatedtotheAttendance \ Zonesonappeal.qXXXXԀ#XXXqX#  $XXXX=*-Xdd=      14    _=*-XXdXd=AtthetimethattheBPSstudentassignmentsystemwas  declaredunitary,itincludedthefollowingcourtorderedracial  guidelines: \ ` ` Theenrollmentguidelinesarebaseduponthe X racial/ethniccompositionofthepublicschool . populationwithineachcommunitydistrictand   ateachgradelevel:elementary,middle,and   highschool....[_A]ssignment_Ԁtotalsata `  particularschoolmaydivergefromthe 6   communitydistrictstandardwithinarange  \  establishedbyaddingandsubtracting25%from  2  eachracial/ethnicgroup'sproportion....   Thus,forexample,if48%oftheelementary   schoolstudentsresidinginasubdistrict d  consistedofaparticularracial/ethnicgroup, :  25%of48,i.e.,12,wouldbeaddedand `  subtractedtoresultinanallowablerange 6 from36%to60%fortheassignmentofthese   studentstoeachelementaryschoolinthe  communitydistrict. h ` ` Morganv._Nucci_,620F.Supp.214,221(___D._ԀMass.1985).  $XXXX=*-Xdd=      6    _=*-XXdXd=Fromwhatwecangleanfromtherecord,itappearsthatthe  assignmentsystemvirtuallyalwaysaccommodatesthesibling  priority. Q $XXXX=*-Xdd=      13    _=*-XXdXd=Asthe_BCF_ԀIVcourtnoted,onlyoneschooldeviatesfromthe  50%walkzonepreference:thenewK8OrchardGardensSchool,  locatedinthepredominatelyminorityneighborhoodof_Roxbury_ \ Crossing,usesa75%walkzonepreference._BCF_ԀIV,260F.Supp.2d 2 at331.Althoughthedistrictcourtcalledthisdeviation X "troubling,"id.atn.24,itnotedthattheOrchardGardensSchool . islocatedinanareathathastraditionallyhadtoofewschoolsto   servetheresidentstudentpopulation.Id.at331.Also,Orchard   GardensSchoolisoneofonlythreeK8pilotschools,whichare `  subjecttofewerrestrictionsthanthevastmajorityofnonpilot 6   schoolsintheBPSsystem,andoneofonlytwoschoolswithawalk  \  zonethatcrossesAttendanceZonelines.Moretothepoint,  2  plaintiffsdonotargueonappealthattheOrchardGardensSchool   walkzonepreferenceisproofofBPSapplyingthefaciallyneutral   walkzonepolicyinadiscriminatorymanner.  $XXXX=*-Xdd=      20    _=*-XXdXd=Wealsonotethatplaintiffs'extensiverelianceon_Wessmann_  ismisplaced.Withoutbelaboringthepoint,theadmissionsplanin  _Wessmann_subjectedacertainnumberofseatstostrictnumerical \ racialguidelines.Here,incontrast,theNewPlanisfacially 2 raceneutralwithnomentionofrace,racialclassifications,set X asides,orquotas.FN;B01514   FN;B01615citeas((Cite as: 458 U.S. 457, *485, 102 S.Ct. 3187, **3203 )citeas((Cite as: 458 U.S. 457, *485, 102 S.Ct. 3187, **3202)SDU_57<4 9Z+.Courier New Regular 4 $XXXX=*-Xdd=      2    _=*-XXdXd=EachAttendanceZonecontainsapproximately30elementary  schools;whilestudentsarefreetorankallofthoseschools,  alongwiththecitywideprograms,inorderoftheirpreference, \ moststudentsactuallyrankonlyfivetosixschools. ? $XXXX=*-Xdd=      23    _=*-XXdXd=Forthe200001schoolyear,John_Feeney_Ԁappliedinthethird  applicationroundforakindergartenseat,rankingfiveschoolsin  orderofhispreference.Thefirsttwohadbeenfilledinearlier \ rounds.Hewasnotassignedtohisthirdandfourthchoiceschools 2 becauseundertheracialguidelinestheninforce,nomoreseats X wereavailableforwhitestudents.Asaresult,theremaining . availableseatswereassignedtoblackstudentswithworserandom   numbers._BCF_ԀIII,183F.Supp.2dat38889.     Similarly,forthe1996schoolyear,KathleenMcCoyapplied `  forassignmenttofourschools.Shewasunsuccessfulingaining 6   assignmenttoherfirstandsecondchoiceschools.Atherthird  \  choiceschool,_Condon_,shewasdeniedaseatsolelybecauseofthe  2  operationoftheracialguidelines;blackstudentswithworse   randomnumbersthanhersreceivedassignmentsto_Condon_Ԁinstead.   Id.at389.SearchTerm E $XXXX=*-Xdd=      3    _=*-XXdXd=Forelementaryschools,thewalkzoneincludesthe_geocodes_,  orsmallergeographicunitswithineachAttendanceZone,withina  onemileradiusoftheschool.Formiddleschools,thewalkzone \ radiusincreasesto1.5miles.  $XXXX=*-Xdd=      11    _ XXXX=*-XXdXd=Accordingtotheirbrief,plaintiffsexplicitly"nolonger  seekreliefintheformofindividualreassignmentstotheir  schoolsofchoice."Furthermore,plaintiffsapparentlynolonger \ seekcompensatorydamagesoranyofthemyriadformsofinjunctive 2 reliefoncerequested,savetheinjunctionprohibitingtheuseof X raceinfutureschoolassignmentsystems.#XXX X#  $XXXX=*-Xdd=      5    _=*-XXdXd=Plaintiffsappellantsinthiscasearenowtenindividual  minorchildren,representedbytheirrespectiveparent(s).  Boston'sChildrenFirstwastheorganizationalplaintiffwhenthe \ casewasinitiallyfiled.However,thedistrictcourtfoundthat 2 Boston'sChildrenFirsthadnostandingtobringsuit._BCF_ԀIII, X 183F.Supp.2dat403.Thisrulingwasnotappealed. . Accordingly,Boston'sChildrenFirstisnotapartybeforethis   courtonappeal,andwerefertotheindividualminorscollectively   as"plaintiffs"throughouttheopinion.StarPageciteas((Cite as: 438 U.S. 265, *312 , 98 S.Ct. 2733, **2759)  $XXXX=*-Xdd=      8    _=*-XXdXd=TheplaintiffsseekingcompensatorydamageswereJamieLee  Higgins,John_O'Toole_,Andrew_Sharaffa_,andSeanandThomas  _Stoddard_.  $XXXX=*-Xdd=      4    _=*-XXdXd=Thiscriterionappliedwhenaschoolhadmorekindergarten  seatsthanfirstgradeseats.Studentswith"permanent"  kindergartenseatswereassuredplacementinthatschool'sfirst \ grade,whilestudentswith"temporary"seatshadtoapplyfora 2 firstgradeseat._BCF_ԀIII,183F.Supp.2dat386_Ԅ87._  $XXXX=*-Xdd=      7    _=*-XXdXd=Becausethereisnodisputethatthedefendantsaresubject  toTitleVI,1981,and1983,allofplaintiffs'claimsunder  theseprovisionsturnontheresolutionoftheequalprotection \ claim.SeeGeneralBuildingContractorsAssn.,Inc.v. 2 Pennsylvania,458U.S.375,389390(1982)(purposeful X discriminationthatviolatestheEqualProtectionClausealsowill . violate1981);Bakerv._McCollan_,443U.S.137,144n.3(1979)(   1983"isnotitselfasourceofsubstantiverights,butamethod   forvindicatingfederalrightselsewhereconferred");Alexanderv. `  _Sandoval_,532U.S.275,281(2001)(TitleVIproscribesonlythose 6   racialclassificationsthatwouldviolatetheEqualProtection  \  ClauseortheFifthAmendment).Accordingly,we,liketheparties,  2  directouranalysistotheEqualProtectionClausearguments.We   treattheArticle111claimseparatelyinPartIII.B.4.     $XXXX=*-Xdd=      9    _=*-XXdXd=ThesefiveplaintiffsareMichael_Gattozzi_,KathleenMcCoy,  NicholasAnderson,_Kayleigh_ԀBarryMeltzer,andSean_Stoddard_. 9 $XXXX=*-Xdd=      21    _ XXXX=*-XXdXd=Intheirbrieftothiscourt,plaintiffs'requestfor  prospectiveinjunctivereliefwaslimitedtoaprohibitory  injunctionagainstthefutureuseoftheOldPlan.However,the \ districtcourtrulingonthisissueaddressedoneofthebroader 2 prohibitoryinjunctionsplaintiffssoughtduringlitigation X namely,aninjunctionproscribingthefutureuseofraceinthe . studentassignmentsysteminanyway._BCF_ԀIV,260F.Supp.2dat   333.Becauseofourdispositionofthisissueonappeal,the   discrepancybetweenthesetworequestsisimmaterial.#XXX X#  $XXXX=*-Xdd=      10    _ XXXX=*-XXdXd=Althoughplaintiffsdonotexplicitlyrequestreversalofthe  districtcourt'sdenialofadeclaratoryjudgmentholdingtheNew  Planunconstitutional,theyclaimthattheyhavestandingtoseek \ suchadeclaratoryjudgment.Further,theyargueatlengthin 2 theirbriefsthattheNewPlanisunconstitutional.Wecannotread X theseargumentsasanythingotherthanarequestthattheNewPlan . bedeclaredunconstitutional#XXX X# XXXX.#XXX Xi# v $XXXX=*-Xdd=      16    _=*-XXdXd=The_RIL_,inspiredbyTitleVIandadoptedin1965,statesa  policy"toencourageallschoolcommitteestoadoptaseducational  objectivesthepromotionofracialbalanceandthecorrectionof \ existingracialimbalanceinthepublicschools."_M.G.L._Ԁc.71, 2 37C.Tobeeligibleforfundsunderthe_RIL_,schoolboardsmust X providetheStateBoardofEducationwithstatisticsdemonstrating .  theircompliancewiththeracialbalancingrequirementsofthe_RIL_.  Id.37D. XXXXԀ#XXX X#BPSlastreceived_RIL_ԀfundsinNovember2001because  theMassachusettslegislature_defunded_Ԁtheprogramfor2002.The \ programremainsunfunded,anditsvalidityiscurrentlybeing 2 challengedinthefederalcourts.Comfortexrel._Neumyer_v.Lynn X SchoolComm.,283F.Supp.2d328(D.Mass.2003)appealdocketed, . No.032415(1stCir.Oct.17,2003).(;3$2#  0  .3  0  !XXXX  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * ! X7XXX NX X7     kTUnitedStatesCourtofAppeals D N  FortheFirstCircuit  @ D XX @  A') ` dE< ` A   XXX XNo.032021 K     `     h   NICHOLASANDERSON,aminor,byhisparentandnext  G  friend,ELLENDOWD;_KAYLEIGH_ԀBARRY-MELTZER,aminor,    byherparentsandnextfriends,CATHLEENBARRYand   GEORGEMELTZER;JOHNP._FEENEY_,JR.,aminor,byhis y  parentsandnextfriends,_ENA_ԀandJOHN_FEENEY_; O  MICHAEL_GATTOZZI_,aminor,byhisparentsand %u  nextfriends,JOSEPHand_PATRICE_Ԁ_GATTOZZI_; K  JAMIELEEHIGGINS,aminor,byherparentsand ! nextfriends,KERRYANNandJOSEPHHIGGINS;  JOHNK._O'TOOLE_,JR.,aminor,byhisparentsand } nextfriends,JOHNandROSE_O'TOOLE_; S KATHLEENMCCOY,aminor,byherparents )y andnextfriends,CAROLandJOHNMCCOY; O ANDREW_SHARAFFA_,aminor,byhisparentsandnext % friends,DAVIDandMAE_SHARAFFA_;SEANJ.  andTHOMASE._STODDARD_,minors,bytheir  parentsandnextfriends,MARYK.andSTEPHEN_STODDARD_, W Plaintiffs,Appellants, S BOSTON'SCHILDRENFIRST,  Plaintiff, [ v. !W! CITYOFBOSTON;THOMAS_MENINO_,MayoroftheCity "# ofBoston;THOMASW.PAYZANT,Superintendentofthe #$ BostonPublicSchools;BOSTONSCHOOLCOMMITTEE; _$% ELIZABETH_REILINGER_,BostonSchoolCommittee 5% & Chairperson;ALFREDAJ.HARRIS,SchoolCommittee  &[!' Vice-Chairperson;FELIXD.ARROYO,SchoolCommittee &1"( Member;ROBERTP._GITTENS_,SchoolCommitteeMember; '#) SUSAN_NAIMARK_,SchoolCommitteeMember; (#* _MARCHELLE_Ԁ_RAYNOR_,SchoolCommitteeMember; c)$+ WILLIAMSPRING,SchoolCommitteeMember, 9*%, Defendants,Appellees. +5'. *  -(0? kT k   k  _A') ` dE<` A  @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT    FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS k f@P P [Hon.NancyGertner,U.S.DistrictJudge] g   [Hon.RichardG.Stearns,U.S.DistrictJudge] = A') ` dE< ` A   @'Before ~     Boudin,ChiefJudge,@@(( * z  andLynchandLipez,CircuitJudges. P  A') ` dE<` A         MichaelWilliams,withwhomRobertJ.Roughsedge,Chester g  Darling,andCitizensforthePreservationofConstitutional =  Rights,Inc.,wereonbrief,forappellants. c   FrancesS.Cohen,withwhomEricaL.Hovani,MatthewM.Lyons,  andDechertLLP,wereonbrief,forappellees.    SharonL.BrownonbriefforamicuscuriaePacificLegal A Foundation. g    `     h   *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  EE  SI  `@38179`@SJuly12,2004 "  RHCU#" `@38179 `@ R($  (* !  8X*-XXXdd8Y*,X` XX*=*-Xdd==*-XXdXd=Ӏ [$  `  _$* A*-XdXXduA=*-XXdXd= ` LIPEZ,CircuitJudge .Attheoutsetofitspenultimate  rulinginthisprotractedlitigation,thedistrictcourtobserved: x "Thiscasemaypossiblybetheconcludingchapterinthirtyyears $t oflitigationovertheefforttodesegregatetheBostonPublic   Schools."Boston'sChildrenFirstv.BostonSchoolComm.,260F. |  Supp.2d318,319(D.Mass.2003).Thatcautiouspredictionmaybe ( x  accurate. $   ` Boston'sChildrenFirst,anonprofitadvocacygroup,and   parentsofseveralwhitestudentssuedtheCityofBoston,Boston ,|  MayorThomasMenino,BostonPublicSchools(BPS)Superintendent ( ThomasPayzant,andmembersoftheBostonSchoolCommittee  (collectively,thedefendants),claimingthatBPS'snowdefunct 0 raceconsciousassignmentsystemviolatedtheirchildren'srights , undertheFourteenthAmendment'sEqualProtectionClause,42U.S.C.  1981and1983,42U.S.C.2000d(commonlyknownasTitleVI), 4 andArticle111oftheAmendmentstotheMassachusettsDeclaration 0 ofRights.Promptedatleastinpartbythelawsuitagainstthem,   theBostonSchoolCommittee,attherecommendationof 8!" SuperintendentPayzant,votedtoremovetheracialguidelinesfrom "4$ theassignmentsystemonJuly14,1999.AfterBPSadopteda $& faciallyraceneutralassignmentplaninNovember1999,the <&!( plaintiffscontinuedtopresstheirsuit,seekingdeclaratory '8#* relief,severalformsofinjunctiverelief,compensatorydamages, )$, andnominaldamages.Overthecourseoffourrulings,thedistrict @+&. courtdeniedallofplaintiffs'claimssaveone:anawardof  nominaldamagesof$1.00eachtothetwostudentswhowouldhave \ beenassignedtotheschooloftheirchoiceundertheoldsystem X butfortheirrace.Plaintiffsappeal.Findingnoerror,we   affirmthedistrictcourtrulingsinallrespects. `     I.   \  ! ` Withfourpublisheddistrictcourtdecisionssettingout $  thefactualbackgroundofthiscaseinconsiderabledetail,we   limitourselvesheretoarecitationofthefactsmostpertinentto ,|  theissuesbeforeusonappeal.Forgreaterdetail,werefer ( readerstoBoston'sChildrenFirstv.CityofBoston,62F.Supp.  2d247(D.Mass.1999)("BCFI");Boston'sChildrenFirstv.City 0 ofBoston,98F.Supp.2d111(D.Mass.2000)("BCFII");Boston's , ChildrenFirstv.BostonSchoolComm.,183F.Supp.2d382(D.  Mass.2002)("BCFIII");andBoston'sChildrenFirstv.Boston 4 SchoolComm.,260F.Supp.2d318(D.Mass.2003)("BCFIV"). 0 Additionally,themajorityanddissentingopinionsinWessmannv.   Gittens,160F.3d790(1stCir.1998),provideausefulhistorical 8!" overviewofBPS'sdesegregationrelatedlitigationinfederal "4$ court. $&  ` Inquickreview,thirtyyearsagotheMassachusetts <&!( federaldistrictcourtheldthattheCityofBostonpromotedand '8#* maintainedaraciallysegregateddualpublicschoolsystemin )$, violationofconstitutionallyguaranteedrights.Morganv. @+&. Hennigan,379F.Supp.410,482(D.Mass.1974).Aftertwelve  yearsofsupervisionbythedistrictcourt,thecourtreturned \ controloverstudentassignmentstoBPS,declaringthatBPS's X studentassignmentsystemhadachievedunitariness,Morganv.   Nucci,831F.2d313,318(1stCir.1987),"i.e.afullyintegrated, `  nonsegregatedsystem."Id.at316.Atthatpoint,BPSadoptedan  \  assignmentsystemknownastheControlledChoiceStudentAssignment   Plan,(the"OldPlan"),whichwentintoeffectforthe198990 d  academicyear. `    A.TheOldPlan    #+ ` BPSassignsstudentstoschoolsatthetransitiongrades  duringstudents'publicschoolcareers,eachofwhichcorresponds 0 toastudent'sadvancementtoanewtypeofschool:kindergarten1 , (programsfor4yearolds),kindergarten2(programsforfiveyear  olds),firstgrade(elementaryschool),sixthgrade(middle 4 school),andninthgrade(highschool).Whilehighschool 0 assignmentsaremadeonacitywidebasis,Bostonisdividedinto   threeAttendanceZonestheNorth,East,andWestZonesfor 8!" purposesoftheelementaryandmiddleschoolassignmentsatissue "4$ inthiscase.Thesezonesweredrawnbythedistrictcourtaspart $& ofitsdesegregationorders,andthelineslargelyhewtomajor <&!(  transportationroutestokeeptraditionalneighborhoodsintactas '8#* muchaspossible.e #  1      ׀Studentsareeligibletoattendanyofthe   schoolslocatedintheAttendanceZoneinwhichthestudents \ reside. X  ` Aspartoftheassignmentprocess,studentsranktheir   preferencesfortheschoolswithintheirAttendanceZone,aswell `  asforthefewschoolsthatacceptstudentsfromanypartofthe  \  citywithoutregardtoAttendanceZonelines.r #  2      ׀Studentswhose   siblingsattendaschoolreceiveapreferenceforthatschool d  duringtheassignmentprocess.Similarly,studentswholivewithin `  thewalkzonew  #  3      ׀ofagivenschoolreceiveapreferenceforseatsat   thatschool.Finally,everystudentreceivesarandomlyassigned h lotterynumber,withthelowernumbersbeingconsideredmore d advantageous.   ` UndertheOldPlan,BPSassignedstudentstoschools l usingthefollowingcritera:thestudent'srankpreferenceforthe h school;whetherasiblingalreadyattendedtheschool;whetherthe  studentlivedwithintheschool'swalkzone;whetherthestudent  hadalreadymatriculatedattheschoolonatemporarybasis; #  4      ׀and, \ asatiebreaker,thestudent'srandomnumber,withalowerrandom X numberwinningoutoverhighernumbers.AssignmentsundertheOld   Planoperatedwithoneadditionalconstraintthe"idealracial `  percentage"foreachgrade'spopulation,ascalculatedbythe  \  racialandethniccompositionofthestudentpopulationinthat   gradewithineachofthethreeAttendanceZones.Ifadmittinga d  studentwouldcauseadeviationofmorethan15%fromthe"ideal `  racialpercentage,"thatstudentwouldnotbeadmitted.TheOld   Planoperatedlargelywithoutchangefortenyears,from1989 h through1999. d   B.Boston'sExamSchoolAssignmentSystemand  x9ӀRelated"ReverseDiscrimination"Lawsuits   i9 ` InJune1999,thefirstfourofwhatultimatelybecame l tenindividualplaintiffs,alongwithBoston'sChildrenFirst,| #  5       h filedthislawsuit,promptedinpartbythesuccessful"reverse  discrimination"lawsuitsbroughtbythefamiliesoftwowhite \ childrenwhoweredeniedadmissiontotheirchoiceofoneofBPS's X threecompetitiveexamschools.SeeMcLaughlinv.BostonSchool   Comm.,938F.Supp.1001(D.Mass.1996);Wessmannv.Gittens,160 `  F.3d790(1stCir.1998).Theseexamschoolsadmitstudentsusing  \  adifferentsystemthanthatusedbytheotherschoolsintheBPS   system.AtthetimeJuliaMcLaughlinappliedtoBostonLatin d  School,admissionswerebasedonacombinationofanapplicant's `  gradepointaverageandstandardizedtestscores(collectively   calledthe"zscore"),subjecttoa35%minoritysetaside h previouslyimposedbythefederaldesegregationorderandstillin d effectatthattime.AfterMcLaughlinfiledsuitandobtaineda  preliminaryinjunctionadmittinghertoBostonLatin,BPS l voluntarilydiscontinueduseofthe35%quota,admittedstudents h similarlysituatedtoMcLaughlin,andcommissionedaconsulting  companytodeviseanewadmissionspolicy. p   ` Thereplacementexamschooladmissionpolicyeventually !l" adoptedbyBPSdefinedthe"qualifiedapplicantpool"foreachexam "$ schoolasthe50%ofstudentswithzscoresabovethemeaninany t$& givenyear.Then,BPSfilledhalfofeachexamschool'sseats  &p!( basedonthestudents'expressedpreferencesforeachschooland '#* theirrankorderzscores.Theremainderoftheseatswerealso x)$, allocatedbystudents'schoolpreferencesandrankorderzscores, $+t&. subjecttomirroringtheracialcompositionoftheremaining  qualifiedapplicantpoolnotyetadmitted.SarahWessmannwas \ deniedadmissiontoBostonLatinunderthenewexamschool X admissionsystem,sued,andultimatelyprevailedonappeal.We   foundtheadmissionsystemunconstitutionalbecauseitsuseof `  racialclassificationswasnotnarrowlytailoredtomeeta  \  compellingstateinterest.SeeWessmann,160F.3dat80709.     C.TheNewPlan  d  tE ` BasedinnosmallpartonSuperintendentPayzant'sfrank ,|  assessmenttotheSchoolCommitteethat,inlightofWessmannand ( otherreversediscriminationlawsuits,plaintiffsinthiscase  wouldalmostcertainlyprevailintheirchallengetotheOldPlan, 0 theSchoolCommitteevotedonJuly14,1999,todiscontinuetheuse , oftheracialclassificationsintheOldPlan.SeeBCFIV,260F.  Supp.2dat324n.10.Atthetimeofthisvote,theSchool 4 CommitteealsochargedtheSuperintendentwithdevelopinganew 0 studentassignmentplanthatdidnotconsider"raceasafactorin   makingstudentassignments"andwouldalsoreflect"otherchanges 8!" necessarytomaximizeaccesstochoice,tosupportdiversity,and "4$ promotequalityeducationforthechildrenoftheCityofBoston." $& BCFIV,260F.Supp.2dat325. <&!(  ` OnOctober20andNovember3,1999,theSuperintendent '8#* recommendedthattheOldPlanbefurthermodifiedintwosalient )$, ways:byreducingthepercentageofavailableseatsallocatedfor @+&. studentswithinaschool'swalkzonefrom100%to50%,andby  treatingstudentswhodidnotactuallylivewithinthewalkzoneof \ anyschoolasthoughtheyhadawalkzonepreferencefortheir X firstorsecondchoiceschool.OnNovember10,theSchool   CommitteeadoptedtheSuperintendent'srecommendationstothe `  ControlledChoiceStudentAssignmentPlanwiththemodification  \  thatstudentslackingawalkzoneschoolwouldbegivenawalkzone   preferenceforboththeirfirstandsecondchoiceschools.For d  convenience,werefertothemodifiedControlledChoiceStudent `  AssignmentPlanasthe"NewPlan."    ` UndertheNewPlan,whichwentintoeffectforthe2000 h 01schoolyear,studentsstillranktheirchoiceofschoolsand d receiverandomnumbers.Studentsaresortedbytheirschoolchoice  andorderedbytheirrandomnumber,withthelowestnumbersputat l thetopofthelist.BPSthencomputesthenumberofavailable h seatsateachschoolandsetsaside50%ofthoseseatsforstudents  wholivewithintheschool'swalkzone.Theseatsateachschool p  arethenfilledaccordingtothefollowingpriorities:first !l" prioritytostudentswithintheschool'swalkzoneandwitha "$ siblingalreadyinattendance;secondprioritytostudentsoutside t$& theschool'swalkzonebutwithasiblingalreadyinattendance;  &p!( andthirdprioritytostudentswithintheschool'swalkzonebut '#* withnosiblingalreadyinattendance.Iftherearemorestudents x)$, inaprioritytierthanseatsavailable,theseatswillgotothe $+t&. studentswiththebetterrandomnumbers.Asstudentsareadmitted,  thesystemupdatesthenumberofwalkzoneseatsthatare \ available.Oncethosewalkzoneseatsarefilled,astudent's X walkzonestatusdropsoutofconsiderationandstudentsare   assignedinaccordancewiththeschoolpreferencesbytherankof `  theirrandomnumber.g #  6      ׀Finally,theapplicationsandassignments  \  aredoneinrounds;ifastudentfailstomeetthefirstround   applicationdeadline,shecansubmitherpreferencesinthesecond d  round,andsoon. `    D.CourseofLitigationBelow    V ` Aspreviouslymentioned,fourplaintiffsandBoston's  ChildrenFirstfiledsuitinfederaldistrictcourtonJune21, 0 1999,claimingthattheOldPlanviolatedtheEqualProtection , Clause,whichprovidesthatnoStateshall"denytoanyperson  withinitsjurisdictiontheequalprotectionofthelaws";42 4 U.S.C.1981and1983,whichcollectivelyprohibitdeprivations 0 ofconstitutionalrightsundercolorofstatelaw;TitleVI,which   prohibitsinstitutionsreceivingfederalfundsfromengagingin 8!" racialdiscrimination;andArticle111oftheAmendmentstothe "4$ MassachusettsDeclarationofRights,whichstatesthat"[n]o $&  studentshallbeassignedtoordeniedadmittancetoapublic <&!( schoolonthebasisofrace,color,nationaloriginorcreed." #  7      ׀   Plaintiffssoughtinjunctivereliefandclasscertificationto \ representallsimilarlysituatedwhitechildren. X  ` OnJuly14,1999,theSchoolCommitteevotedto   discontinuetheuseofraceinassignments.OnAugust10,1999, `  thedistrictcourtdeniedplaintiffs'requestforinjunctiverelief  \  thatwouldhave,interalia,orderedBPStoceaseusingraceor   ethnicityinanyphaseoftheschoolassignmentprocessandtore d  opentheassignmentprocesstostudentswhoattemptedtotransfer `  schoolsthepreviousyear,aswellasthoseenteringkindergarten   andfirstgrade.BCFI,62F.Supp.2dat262. h  ` SometimeafterBCFI,sixotherplaintiffchildren d joinedthesuit,andplaintiffs'claimsforreliefexpanded  considerably.Plaintiffsnowsoughtatleastsixformsof l injunctiverelief,including(1)admittingplaintiffstotheir h schoolsofchoice,(2)enjoiningdefendantsfromtheuseofany  racebasedpracticeinallaspectsofschoolassignmentsand  governance,(3)requiringallstudentsintheBPSsystemtoreapply \ underthetermsoftheNewPlan,(4)dismantlingtheAttendance X Zones,(5)grantingBoston'sChildrenFirstaccesstoBPSrecords   tomonitorcompliance,and(6)retainingjurisdictioninfederal `  courtforthreeyearstomonitorcompliance.Plaintiffsalso  \  soughtdeclaratoryreliefstatingthattheNewPlanviolatedtheir   rightsundertherelevantfederalandstatelaws,nominaldamages d  forallplaintiffs,andcompensatorydamagesforfiveplaintiffs. #  8      ׀ `  OnOctober29,BPSmovedtodismissplaintiffs'claims,arguing   thatthesuitwasmootinlightofitsvoluntarydiscontinuanceof h theOldPlan. d  ` OnMay19,2000,theBCFIIcourtruledthatallofthese  claimssurviveddefendantsmotiontodismiss,withoneexception. l Findingthatfive"oftheplaintiffsdidnotseekassignmentsin h the19992000schoolyearandhavenotindicatedanypresent  intentiontoseekanassignmentinthe200001schoolyear,"the p  districtcourtheldthat"injunctivereliefisunnecessaryto !l" redresstheinjuriesofthese[five]plaintiffsastheyhavenot "$ indicatedthattheywillevenparticipateinthefutureschool t$& assignmentplan."BCFII,98F.Supp.2dat117.Accordingly,the  &p!( courtgranteddefendants'motiontodismissinsofarasitrelated '#* totheinjunctivereliefofthosefiveplaintiffs, #  9      ׀andotherwise  deniedthemotion.Id. \  ` InBCFIII,thecourtdisposedofadditionalclaims. X First,thecourtdismissedasmoottheremainingfiveplaintiffs'   requestforinjunctivereliefadmittingthemtotheirschoolof `  choicebecausethreeplaintiffs(Sharaffa,O'Toole,andFeeney)  \  lefttheBPSsystempriortothe2001admissionsseason,andthe   finaltwoplaintiffs(HigginsandThomasStoddard)chosetoremain d  attheircurrentschools.BCFIII,183F.Supp.2dat395. `  Second,thecourtrejectedplaintiffs'claimsthatthethree   AttendanceZoneswere"raciallygerrymandered,"explainingthat h "[b]ecausethezonestoday,whateverroleracemayhaveplayedin d theircreation,serveadministrative,ratherthanracialbalancing  purposes,Iconcludethatnoviable'caseorcontroversy'exists l regardingtheircurrentconfiguration."Id.at39799.This h holdingdisposedofboththeinjunctiverequestrelatedto  dismantlingtheAttendanceZonesandthedeclaratoryreliefrequest p  totheextentthatitrestedontheallegedlyracialpurposeofthe !l" AttendanceZones.Third,thecourtdeniedplaintiffs'requestfor "$ aninjunctionrequiringeverystudentintheBPSsystemtoreapply t$& undertheNewPlan,explainingthat  &p!( ` ` evenifashowingcouldbemadethatoneor '#* moreoftheplaintiffsmightderivean (#+ advantagefromasystemwidereprocessingof  allstudentassignments,anybenefitconferred  wouldbeoutweighedbytheconsequent \ demoralizationofaschoolsystemthathasyet 2 tofullyabsorbtheeffectsofaquarter X centuryefforttobringitselfintocompliance . withcourtordereddesegregation.   ` 4n` BnPnId.at401.Fourth,thecourtheldthatBoston'sChildrenFirst `  lackedstandingasanorganizationalplaintifftopressthe  \  lawsuit.Id.at403.TheBCFIIIcourtreservedalloftheother   claimsinthesuitpendingfurtherdiscovery,briefing,andtrial. d  Id. `   ` Followingabenchtrialonthemerits,thedistrictcourt   issuedarulinginBCFIVonApril23,2003.TheBCFIVcourt h foundthat(1)theNewPlan,withitschangeinthewalkzone d preferencefrom100%to50%ofseats,wasfaciallyraceneutral,  (2)therewasnoevidencethatthepolicywasappliedina l discriminatorymanner,and(3)plaintiffsdidnotshowthatthe h policywasadoptedwithadiscriminatoryintentionandappliedin  awaythathadadiscriminatoryeffect.BCFIV,260F.Supp.2dat p  33132.Accordingly,thedistrictcourtdeclinedtoapplystrict !l" scrutinytotheNewPlan.Id.at333.Instead,itevaluatedthe "$ NewPlanunderrationalbasisreviewandfoundthatit"satisf[ied] t$& thereasonablenesstest."Id.Thecourtalsoheldthat  &p!( plaintiffs'"[m]ereskepticism...aboutthedefendants'future '#* intentions[]cannotjustify"aninjunctionprohibitingtheschool x)$, systemfromusingraceasafactorintheassignmentsysteminthe $+t&. future.Inconsequence,thecourtenteredjudgmentfordefendants,  id.at334,andnotedthatitwouldaddressthebifurcatedclaims \ fornominaldamagesseparately.Id.atn.28. X  ` OnMay27,2003,thecourtissuedashortmemorandumand   orderawardingnominaldamagesof$1.00eachtoFeeneyandMcCoy `  because,asBPSadmitted,thoseplaintiffs"weredeniedseat  \  assignmentsattheirpreferredschoolsbecauseoftheirrace"under   theOldPlan.Boston'sChildrenFirstv.BostonSchoolComm.,No. d  9911330RGS(D.Mass.May27,2003)(unpublished)("BCFV").The `  courtalsoheldthat"[a]stheremainingplaintiffscanmakeno   showingofadeprivationunderTexasv.Lesage,528U.S.18,21 h (1999)(percuriam),nodamages,nominalorotherwise,maybe d awarded."BCFV,at1.    II.  l { ` Onthisfactuallyrichandcomprehensivelylitigated 4 background,wearenowpresentedwithplaintiffs'appealfroma 0 varietyofadverserulings.Althoughwefindsomeconfusioninthe   recordandthebriefsoverboththeexactnatureoftherelief 8!" soughtonappealandwhethercertainclaimsforinjunctiverelief "4$ soughtbyplaintiffsweredismissedformootnessorlackof $& standing,orinsteadresolvedonthemerits,weultimately <&!( understandthatplaintiffsseekthreeformsofreliefonappeal. '8#*  First,plaintiffsseekadeclaratoryjudgmentthattheNewPlanis )$, unconstitutional. #  10      ׀Second,plaintiffsseekaninjunction   prohibitingBPSfromusingraceinanywayinamodifiedschool \ assignmentsystem.Third,plaintiffsrequestnominaldamagesfor X theeightplaintiffstowhomnominaldamageswerepreviously   denied.zj #  11      ׀Afterdiscussingthestandardsofreviewwhichguideour `  analysisoftheissues,wewilladdressthesethreeclaims  \  seriatim.     III. d    A.StandardsofReview  ,|   ` "Weaccorddeferential% u %uXreviewtospecificfindingsof D factemanatingfromabenchtrial."Wessmann,160F.3dat795  (citingFed.R.Civ.P.52(a)).However,whentheissuesonappeal L "raise[]eitherquestionsoflaworquestionsabouthowthelaw T appliestodiscernedfacts,"suchaswhethertheprofferedevidence  establishesadiscriminatorypurposeoradisproportionateracial \ impact,"ourreviewisessentiallyplenary."Id.at795. X Similarly,wereviewdenovothedistrictcourt'sotherlegal  conclusions,Cohenv.BrownUniv.,101F.3d155,192(1stCir. \ 1996),includingthelevelofscrutinyitappliedwhenevaluating X theconstitutionalityoftheNewPlanand,inthecontextof   denyingeightplaintiffsnominaldamages,itsinterpretationof `  Texasv.Lesage,528U.S.18(1999)(percuriam).Dispositionsof  \  arequestforinjunctivereliefaretypically"review[ed]onlyto   ensurethatthedistrictcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionin d  granting,orfailingtogrant,suchrelief,"CarolineT.v.Hudson `  SchoolDist.,915F.2d752,754(1stCir.1990),althoughrelated   legaldeterminations,suchasmootness,arereviewedunderthe h usualdenovoreviewaffordedtoallconclusionsoflaw. See d Cotterv.CityofBoston,323F.3d160,166(1stCir.2003) .    B.TheConstitutionalityoftheNewPlan   W ` Akeyquestioninanalyzingtheconstitutionalityofthe P NewPlaniswhetherstrictscrutinyorrationalbasisreview L applies.Plaintiffspresentseveralargumentsthatstrictscrutiny   applies,includingthattheunconstitutionalityoftheOldPlanc #  12       T!" requiresapresumptionthattheNewPlanisunconstitutionaland #P$ thatthedefendants'statedgoalofdiversityrequiresafinding  thattheNewPlanisunconstitutional.Evenifthosearguments \ fail,plaintiffscontend,theNewPlanhasadiscriminatoryeffect X fromwhichadiscriminatoryintentcanbeinferred.    `  1.AdoptionoftheNewPlan `    ` Whendesigningandchoosingamongmethodsforassigning  \  studentstoschools,schoolboardsseektopromotecertainvalues   andpolicies,andtheyoperatewithincertainhistorical, d  political,financial,andlegalconstraints.Defendantsinthis `  casearenoexception.AstheyconsideredtheadoptionoftheNew   Planin1999,theysawasystemburdenedwithasignificant h inequityinthenumberofwalkzoneschoolsavailabletostudents d indifferentpartsofthecity.Forexample,whileabout30%of  elementaryschoolstudentshadonlyonetothreewalkzonechoices, l approximately37%hadsixtoten.Infact,whentheNewPlanwas h adoptedinNovember1999,1772studentswerenotwithinthewalk  zoneofanyschool.Furthermore,attheneighborhoodlevel,some p  areasofthecityhadanexcesscapacityofschoolseatscompared !l" tothenumberofschoolagechildren,whileotherareasfaced "$ significantshortages.Forexample,RoxburyandSouthDorchester t$& bothfacedshortagesofaround2500seats,whileJamaicaPlainand  &p!( Allston/Brightoncollectivelyhadexcesscapacityofaround1600 '#* seats.Additionally,someschoolsinsignificantdemandwereover x)$, chosenbyparentsandstudents,whileotherslackedenough $+t&. applicantstofilltheavailableseats.IntheEastZone,where  plaintiffsreside,EverettElementaryhad7.3applicantsforeach \ availableseatforthe200203academicyear,whileLeeElementary X hadjust0.6applicantsforeachavailableseat.    ` ThesubstantialdisparitiesamongtheBoston `  neighborhoodsregardingschoolqualityandcapacity,numbersof  \  residentstudents,andwalkzonechoicesweresignificant   considerationsintheadoptionoftheNewPlananditsreductionof d  thewalkzonepreferenceto50%oftheseats.Additionally,BPS `  compiledstatisticsshowingthatoftheparentsandstudents   rankingtheirschoolchoices,approximately50%choseawalkzone h schoolastheirfirstchoice,whiletheother50%choseastheir d firstchoiceaschoolwhosewalkzonedidnotincludethestudent.   ` BPSalsohadbeenconcernedaboutthepotentially l resegregativeimpactofremovingtheracialguidelinesoftheOld h Planandsimultaneouslyleavingthe100%walkzonepreferencein  place.Apparently,though,BPS'sanalysisallayedthoseconcerns, p  showingthattherewouldbelittleimmediateresegregativeeffect !l" ofremovingtheracialguidelines.SuperintendentPayzant "$ explainedtotheMassachusettsBoardofEducationthatwhenthe t$& SchoolCommitteewasconsideringchangestotheOldPlan,BPS  &p!( ` ` didsomesimulationstoseewhattheimpact '#* wouldbeasaresultofremovingracefromthe (#+ plan,andbasedonthedatawehadtowork x)$, withatthetime,...theresultofremoving N*%- racewasreallyvery,verysmall.Infact,we $+t&. foundoutweonlyhadthreeadditionalschools +J'/ thatwouldnotmeettheracialguidelinesin  oneormoregrades....  ` t` Althoughtheimmediateracialimpactofremovingtheracial 2 guidelineswouldbe"verysmall,"BPSwasstillconcernedaboutthe . impactonaccessandchoicethatwouldflowfroma100%walkzone   preference.Accordingly,BPSsimulatedtheresultsofleavingthe 6   walkzonepreferenceat100%,reducingitto75%,andreducingit  2  to50%.Ultimately,SuperintendentPayzantrecommendedthe50%   reductioninanOctober20,1999,memototheSchoolCommittee. :   ` RATIONALE 6 Onehundredpercentwalkzonepreferenceina   controlledchoiceplanwithoutracial  guidelinescouldresultinallavailableseats h beingassignedtostudentswithinthewalk > zone.Theresultwouldlimitchoiceandaccess d forallstudents,includingthosewhohaveno : walkzoneorliveinwalkzoneswherethereare  insufficientseatstoservethestudents  residinginthewalkzone.... l Untilmoreneighborhoodswithoutschoolsor h withinsufficientnumbersofschoolshave[more > schools],[a]onehundredpercentwalkzone  preferencewouldlimitchoiceandaccessfor  toomanyfamiliestotheschoolstheywant p  theirchildrentoattend.Ontheotherhand, F ! thepolicyalsoshouldanddoesrecognizethe !l" interestsoffamilieswhowanttochooseawalk !B# zoneschool. "$  +` 9GSuperintendentPayzantconcludedthememobystatingthata50% J% ' walkzonepreference"providesafairbalanceandenablesthe &F") SchoolCommitteetoestablishapolicywhichwillresultin (#+  progressinmeetingthegoal[s]ofexcellence,equityanddiversity N*%- throughaccessandeducationalopportunitythroughouttheBoston  PublicSchools." \   ` Theevidencesupportstheconclusionthattheracial X impactofremovingtheracialguidelineswasnotsignificant,and   theSchoolCommitteeadoptedthe50%reductioninwalkzoneseats `  primarilybecausetheywereconcernedaboutlimitedchoiceand  \  equityforstudentswithaninsufficientnumberofwalkzone   schools.Additionally,SuperintendentPayzantandtheSchool d  Committeeconcludedthatthe50%reductionwasconsistentwith `  progresstowardsBPS'sexistinggoalsofexcellence,equity,and   diversity. h <,X` X,X` X< `  2.ApplicabilityofStrictScrutinyReview d   ` "ThecentralpurposeoftheEqualProtectionClauseof  theFourteenthAmendmentisthepreventionofofficialconduct l discriminatingonthebasisofrace."Washingtonv.Davis,426 h U.S.229,239(1976).Accordingly,"[p]roofofracially  discriminatoryintentorpurposeisrequiredtoshowaviolationof p  theEqualProtectionClause."VillageofArlingtonHeightsv. !l" MetropolitanHousingDev.Corp.,429U.S.252,265(1977).When "$ thegovernmentusesexplicitracialclassificationsforthe t$& distributionofbenefits,discriminatoryintentispresumed,and  &p!( thosepoliciesarealwayssubjectedtostrictscrutiny.See,e.g., '#* Pers.Adm'rofMass.v.Feeney,442U.S.256,272(1979)("Aracial x)$, classification,regardlessofpurportedmotivation,is $+t&. presumptively% n %ninvalidandcanbeupheldonlyuponanextraordinary  justification.");Grutterv.Bollinger,539U.S.306,326(2003) \ ("[A]llracialclassificationsimposedbygovernmentmustbe X analyzedbyareviewingcourtunderstrictscrutiny.")(internal   quotationsandcitationomitted)."Weapplystrictscrutinytoall `  racialclassificationsto''smokeout'illegitimateusesofraceby  \  assuringthat[government]ispursuingagoalimportantenoughto   warrantuseofahighlysuspecttool.'"Grutter,539U.S.at326 d  (quotingRichmondv.J.A.% \ %\% b %bڰCrosonCo.,488U.S.469,493(1989) `  (pluralityopinion).)Thetermracialclassification"normally   referstoagovernmentalstandard,preferentiallyfavorabletoone h raceoranother,forthedistributionofbenefits."Rasov.Lago, d 135F.3d11,16(1stCir.1998).   ` Here,though,theNewPlandoesnotemployracial l classifications.Indeed,plaintiffsconcede,astheymust,that h theNewPlanisfaciallyraceneutral.Incontrast,then,tothe  automaticapplicationofstrictscrutinytoovertracial p  classifications,"whenfaciallyneutrallegislationissubjectedto !l" % o %oequalprotectionattack,aninquiryintointentis% p %ppnecessaryto "$ determinewhetherthelegislationinsomesensewasdesignedto t$& accorddisparatetreatmentonthebasisofracialconsiderations."  &p!( Washingtonv.SeattleSchoolDist.,458U.S.457,48485(1982) '#* (emphasisadded).Althoughplaintiffsmayalsoinvokestrict x)$, scrutinyreviewbyshowingthatthefaciallyneutralpolicyis $+t&. appliedinadiscriminatorymanner,YickWov.Hopkins,118U.S.  356,37374(1886),plaintiffshavepointedtonoevidencethatthe \ NewPlanisappliedinadiscriminatorymanner,nordoweseeany X intherecord.h #  13      ׀    ` Inreviewingauniformlyappliedfaciallyneutral `  statute,"[d]eterminingwhetherinvidiousdiscriminatorypurpose  \  wasamotivatingfactor[initsadoption]demandsasensitive   inquiryintosuchcircumstantialanddirectevidenceofintentas d  maybeavailable."ArlingtonHeights,429U.S.at266.The `  SupremeCourtnonexhaustivelyenumeratedseveralfactorsrelevant   totheinquiry:thedegreeofdisproportionateracialeffect,if h any,ofthepolicy;thejustification,orlackthereof,forany d disproportionateracialeffectthatmayexist;andthelegislative  oradministrativehistoricalbackgroundofthedecision. Id.at l 26668.Wewillevaluateplaintiffs'varioustheoriessupporting h strictscrutinyreviewthroughthelensprovidedbyArlington  Heights,althoughwetakethefactorsinadifferentorderto  bettertrackplaintiffs'arguments. \  `  a.Historicalbackground:alleged X  `    presumptionofdiscriminatoryintent .  ` PlaintiffsclaimthatbecausetheOldPlanwas   unconstitutional,andtheNewPlanperpetuatestheOldPlan's 6   effectsinviolationofdefendants'alleged"dutytoeliminate  2  theirduel[sic]assignmentsystem"oftheOldPlan,weshould   inferthattheNewPlanwasadoptedwithadiscriminatoryintent. :  Tosupportthiscontention,plaintiffsquotetwobedrockSupreme 6 Courtdesegregationcasesfromthe1970s:DaytonBd.ofEduc.v.  Brinkman,443U.S.526(1979)(DaytonII);andKeyesv.School > Dist.,413U.S.189(1973).Theverylanguageplaintiffsquote : fromthesecases,aswellastheirsignificantlydifferentfacts,  demonstratetheinaptnessofthesecases. B  ` Asplaintiffspointout,theKeyesCourtheldthat"there > isahighprobabilitythatwhereschoolauthoritieshave  effectuatedanintentionallysegregativepolicyinameaningful F ! portionoftheschoolsystem,similarimpermissibleconsiderations !B# havemotivatedtheiractionsinotherareasofthesystem."Keyes, #% 413U.S.at208.PlaintiffsquoteDaytonIIfortheproposition J% ' thatsuchasystemis"underacontinuingdutytoeradicatethe &F") effectsofthatsystem,and[]thesystemwidenatureofthe (#+ violationfurnishedprimafacieproofthatcurrentsegregationin N*%- the[]schoolswascausedatleastinpartbypriorintentionally +J'/ segregativeofficialacts."DaytonII,443U.S.at536(internal  citationomitted). \  ` KeyesandDaytonIIwereongoingschooldesegregation X casesthatinvolvedpurposefuldiscriminationbyschoolsystems   attemptingtoavoidtheiraffirmativeobligationtoundosystemic `  discriminationunderBrownv.Bd.ofEduc.,347U.S.483,495  \  (1954)(BrownI)(holdingthattheconceptof"separatebutequal"   hasnoplaceinpubliceducation)andBrownv.Bd.ofEduc.,349 d  U.S.294,301(1955)(BrownII)(orderinganendtosegregated `  publiceducation"withalldeliberatespeed.").Thatwasthe   statusoftheBostonschooldesegregationcaseatthetimeofthe h initialliabilityfindingsin1974andtheremedialplanin1976. d SeeMorganv.Kerrigan,509F.2d580,59394(1stCir.  1974)(relyinginpartonKeyesinupholdingliability);Morganv. l Kerrigan,530F.2d401,425(1stCir.1976)(relyinginparton h Keyesinupholdingtheremedialplan).   ` Thiscasearisesinacompletelydifferentcontext. p  Aftergoingthroughschooldesegregation,Bostonwasfoundin1987 !l" tohaveachievedaunitaryschoolassignmentsystem.SeeMorgan, "$ 831F.2dat318.Thedefendantshereactednotwiththeintentto t$& maintainasystemofdejuresegregation,butwiththepurposeof  &p!( maintainingthepostsegregationunitarysystem.Indeed,theOld '#*  Plan,towardthisend,incorporatedaspectsoftheBostonschool x)$, desegregationplanthatwereconstitutionallycompelled.f #  14      ׀   Additionally,whentheschoolcommitteeadoptedtheOldPlanfor \ the1989schoolyear,thequestionableconstitutionalityofsuch X raceconsciouseffortstominimizethetendencytoresegregatewas   farfromclear. `   ` Inessence,plaintiffswouldliketolimittherelevant  \  historyofthiscasetotheperiodfollowingtheadoptionofthe   OldPlan.However,thereisalsoarelevanthistoryofdejure d  discriminationagainstminoritiesthatpredates1989,asthelong `  historyoftheBPSdesegregationlitigationshows.Inconsequence,   thepresentdayBostonschoolsystemreallyfacestwo"legacies" h thesystemitadministeredfordecadesthatintentionally d discriminatedagainstminoritiestomaintainanunequaland  segregatedsystem,andthesystemitadministeredfortenyears \ thatsubjectedseatassignmentstoracialguidelinestomaintain X theracialintegrationachievedduringtheinterveningtwelveyears   ofcourtordereddesegregation. `   ` Thereisnogainsayingthatthesystemstillmust  \  confrontthefalloutfromitsdaysofoverservingwhatwere   traditionallywhitecommunitiesandunderservingwhatwere d  traditionallyminority,thenmostlyblack,communities.AstheBCF `  IVcourtstated:"AnyassignmentplanintheBostonSchoolsystem   is,andwillbefortheforeseeablefuture,constrainedbythe h mismatchbetweenschoolcapacityandneighborhooddemand,duein d parttodemographicshifts,andinparttothedualsystem'slegacy  ofoverservingwhatwerehistoricallywhiteneighborhoods."BCF l IV,260F.Supp.2dat325. h  ` Wedeclinetoadoptplaintiffs'circumscribedviewof  history.Likewise,wedeclinetofindthatplaintiffshave p  establishedaprimafaciecaseofdiscriminatoryintentinthe !l" adoptionoftheNewPlansimplybecausetheOldPlanwas "$ constitutionallyunsound.Overfortyyearsago,theSupremeCourt t$& advisedfederalcourtsthatcontextmatters:  &p!( ` ` [I]ndealingwithclaimsunderbroad '#* provisionsoftheConstitution,whichderive (#+ contentbyaninterpretiveprocessof x)$, inclusionandexclusion,itisimperativethat N*%- generalizations,basedonandqualifiedbythe $+t&. concretesituationsthatgaverisetothem, +J'/ mustnotbeappliedoutofcontextin  disregardofvariantcontrollingfacts.  ` ` Gomillionv.Lightfoot,364U.S.339,34344(1960)(evaluatingthe 2 validityofaredistrictingplanunder,interalia,theEqual . ProtectionClause).Here,BPSvoluntarilydiscontinueduseofthe   OldPlanonceitconcludedthattheplanwasconstitutionally 6   suspectinfact,withineightmonthsofourdecisioninWessmann  2  andreplaceditwitharaciallyneutralassignmentsystemthatwas   designedtomaximize,notminimize,theequitabledistributionof :  seatsinthepublicschools. 6  ` Werecognizethat"[b]enignintentionsdonotimmunize  governmentaction,"Raso,135F.3dat16,andwedonotsuggest > otherwise.Thereisnodoubtthatgovernmentalpoliciesthat : employracialclassificationsforthedistributionofbenefits,or  otherwiseevinceracialdiscrimination,shouldbesubjectedto B strictscrutinyreview.Ifplaintiffscouldmakesuchashowing, > wewouldnothesitatetoapplystrictscrutinytotheNewPlan.  However,bydecliningtoextendthereachofKeyes,DaytonII,and F ! similarcasesbeyondtheirfactstocreateapresumptionof !B# raciallydiscriminatorypurposeintheadoptionoftheNewPlan,we #% simplyrefusetoconflatevastlydissimilarcases. J% ' 0 ` 0 ` (#` (#0 (# (# b.0(#(#Historicalbackground:inclusionof&F")(#(#  `    diversityasagoaloftheNewPlan '#*  ` PlaintiffsalsoarguethattheNewPlanwasadoptedfor x)$, raciallydiscriminatoryreasonsandshouldbesubjecttostrict $+t&. scrutinybecauseSuperintendentPayzantandtheBostonSchool  Committeeidentifieddiversityasoneoftheseveralgoalsofthe \ studentassignmentsystem.Plaintiffsequatethiscommitmentto X racialdiversitywithanillegitimatecommitmenttoracial   balancing.SeeWessmann,160F.3dat800(notingthe `  "Constitution'sgeneralprohibitionagainstracialbalancing").To  \  provetheirpoint,plaintiffscitethetestimonyofSuperintendent   Payzantelicitedoncrossexaminationduringthislitigation: d  ` ` Q.Sothis50%walktoplanactuallypreserved `  theracialbalancegainedbytheOldPlan; 6 isn'tthatcorrect?   A.Right,whichispreciselywhyIdidn'twant h tokeep100%walkzonepreferenceintheNew > Planafterracialguidelineswerewithdrawn. d ` ` &Inaddition,plaintiffscitecommunicationsfromdefendantstrying  toconvincetheRacialImbalanceAdvisoryCouncil(RIAC)^ #  15      ׀andthe l BoardofEducationthataftertheadoptionoftheNewPlan,BPS h shouldstillqualifyforfundsundertheRacialImbalanceLaw,  M.G.L.c.71,37C,etseq.(RIL). #  16      ׀Essentially,Superintendent p  Payzantarguedthat(1)BPSqualifiedforfundsundertheOldPlan,  (2)theNewPlanmaintainedapproximatelythesameracialbalance \ withintheschoolsastheOldPlan,so(3)BPSshouldstillqualify X forRILfunds,eventhoughtheNewPlanlackedtheexplicitracial   guidelinesoftheOldPlan. `   ` Plaintiffs'relianceonselectedexcerptsignoresthe  \  totalityoftheevidence.Asalreadynoted,BPS'sstatistical   analysesshowedthat,evenwiththeeliminationoftheracial d  guidelinesanda100%walkzonepreferenceinplace,therewasonly `  a"very,verysmall"racialresult.SuperintendentPayzant   testifiedattrialthatBPScomparedtheresultsofa100%walk h zonepreferenceappliedbothwithandwithouttheuseoftheracial d guidelinescalledforintheOldPlan  ` ` toletthedataspeakforthemselvesandshow l totheCommissioner,andultimatelytheState B BoardofEducation,thattheimpactofthe h changeinthestudentassignmentplanby > removingracialguidelinesbutkeepingthe  otherelementsofthecontrolledchoicewould  enableustocomeveryclosetothesame p  circumstancesthatwehadthatqualifiedus F ! for...meetingthestandardsoftheRacial !l" ImbalanceLawbeforethepolicywaschanged. !B#   "$ ` M` [i ` Thedataareindeedtelling.AccordingtoSuperintendent   Payzant'stestimonytotheBoardofEducation,whenBPSsimulated \ thefirstroundtransitiongradeassignmentsforthe19992000year X usingactualparentchoicesbuteliminatingonlytheuseofthe   racialguidelines,itfoundthatjustthreeadditionalschools `  wouldhaveoneormoretransitionalgradesfallingoutsidethe  \  racialguidelines.Usingtheparentalchoicedatatoanalyzethe   effectonindividualstudentplacementswithouttheuseofthe d  racialguidelinesrevealedthatonly938outof13,057(orseven `  percent)ofstudentswouldhavebeenassignedtodifferentschools.   Aboutfiftythreepercentofthose938individualchanged h assignmentswouldhaveresultedinthestudentbeingassignedtoa d schoolwhichshehadrankedhigher,and,correspondingly,forty  sevenpercentwouldhavebeenassignedtoaschoolwhichshehad l rankedlower.Whites,Asians,andHispanicsfaredslightlybetter h asgroups,whileblacksandNativeAmericansfaredslightlyworse.   ` Insum,BPS'sanalysesshowedthat,evenafterremoving p  theracialguidelinesoftheOldPlan,theBPSschoolassignment !l" systemdidnotneedfurthermodificationtomaintainthe"racial "$ balance"requiredtobeeligibleforRILfunds.Although t$& defendantswerepressuredbyRIACtocontinueexplicitracial  &p!( balancing,theyrefusedtocomply,despitethesubstantialRIL '#*  fundsatstake. x)$,  ` However,theSuperintendentandtheSchoolCommitteewere   alsoconcernedaboutequityofchoiceandaccessacrossthesystem, \ particularlyforstudentswholivedinneighborhoodswith X inadequatecapacityorunderperformingschools.InhisJuly14,   1999memototheSchoolCommittee,SuperintendentPayzantcommented `  that"itisimportanttonotethatthisisnotanissueof  \  returningtoneighborhoodschools.Thatcanhappeninanequitable   wayonlywhennewqualityschoolsarebuiltinneighborhoodsthat d  nowhaveaninsufficientnumberofschoolstoserveresidentschool `  agechildren...."Thisconcernisfurtherreflectedinthe   summarydescriptionoftheNewPlanprovidedtotheCommissionerof h EducationaspartofBPS'sRILcompliancepresentation.That d documentstatedthattheSuperintendentandtheSchoolCommittee  ` ` areconfidentthatthe[NewPlan]continuesto l ensurebothchoiceandaccessbeyonda B student'sparticularneighborhoodinorderto h preserveracialandethnicdiversityand > reducethelikelihoodofracialisolation  withinitsschools.Inaddition,the[New  Plan]retainsalloftheeducationalbenefits p  oftheoriginalControlledChoiceStudent F ! AssignmentPlan,includingthepromotionof !l" schoolimprovement,continuityandstability !B# ofplacement,andequitabledistributionof "$ resourcesandeducationalopportunity #% districtwide. t$& ` 7` ESThedefendants'publicconfidencethattheNewPlanpreserved  &p!( racialdiversitywhileadvancingtheothervaluesthatthey '#*  identifiedwasnotanadmissionthattheNewPlanwasasuspect x)$, devicetoachievethenumericallypreciseracialbalancingofthe  OldPlan. \   ` Contrarytoplaintiffs'arguments,themereinvocationof X racialdiversityasagoalisinsufficienttosubjecttheNewPlan   tostrictscrutiny.InthosecaseswheretheSupremeCourt `  inquiredwhetherdiversityisacompellingstateinterestand  \  whethertheprogramatissuecouldsurvivestrictscrutiny,the   programswereallsubjectedtostrictscrutinybecausetheyused d  explicitracialclassificationstoachievethegoalofdiversity.Z #  17      ׀ `  Noneofthesecases,noranyothercasetowhichourattentionhas   beendrawn,hassubjectedagovernmentalprogramtostrictscrutiny h simplybecausethestatementioneddiversityasagoal.Asthe d districtcourtsuccinctlyputit:"Motive,inotherwords,isnot  alwayssuspect.Means,however,maybe."BCFIV,260F.Supp.2d l at330.TheSupremeCourthasexplainedthatthemotiveof h increasingminorityparticipationandaccessisnotsuspect.See,  e.g.,CityofRichmondv.JACrosonCo.,488U.S.469,507(1989)  (approvingtheuseofraceneutralmeanstoincreaseminority \ participationingovernmentalprograms). X  ` WesaidasmuchinRasov.Lago,135F.3d11(1998),   whereweconsideredanequalprotectionand1983challengetoa `  faciallyraceneutralpolicychangeregardingtheawardofhousing  \  unitsthat,attheendoftheday,resultedinfewerwhite   residentsreceivingapreferencefortheunitstowhichtheywould d  haveotherwisebeenentitledbecauseoftheirpriorresidency. `  Afteracknowledgingthatthechangeinpolicywasmotivatedbya   desiretoensurethatallraceshadequalaccesstothenew h housing,westatedthat"plaintiffsaremistakenintreating d 'racialmotive'asasynonymforaconstitutionalviolation."Raso,  135F.3dat16. l  ` EmployingdenovoreviewandplacingSuperintendent h Payzant'scitedtestimonyinthecontextoftheentirerecord,we  findthattheplaintiffshavenotshownthatthedefendants'useof p  theword"diversity"wassimplyasubterfugefor"racial !l" balancing."Whiledefendantsfranklyacknowledgedthattheyvalued "$ thedegreeofintegrationBPShadattainedsinceitcameunder t$& federalcourtorderthirtyyearsago,theiranalysesusingactual  &p!( parentalchoicepatternsshowedthatremovingtheracialguidelines '#* oftheOldPlanandthemaintenanceofa100%walkzonepreference x)$, wouldnotsignificantlyerodethoseintegrationgains.BPSthen $+t&. resistedpressuretoadheretostrictracialbalancing,evenwith  RILfundspotentiallyonthetable,andadoptedtheraceneutral \ NewPlan.Toincreasethelikelihoodofafavorableoutcomeon X diversityandtopromote"schoolimprovement,continuityand   stabilityofplacement,andequitabledistributionofresourcesand `  educationalopportunitydistrictwide,"aswellasthesystem's  \  ongoinggoalsof"excellence,equityanddiversity,"thedefendants   optedforthe50%walkzonepreference. d   ` Asthedistrictcourtputit,SuperintendentPayzant's `  referencetodiversity"simplyrestatedhismoreconvincingpoint   thattherevisedassignmentplanisintendedtoaddressissuesof h equitybygivingparentsinunderservedneighborhoodsfairer d accesstotheschoolsystem'sresources."BCFIV,260F.Supp.2d  at332.TotheextentthattheSchoolCommittee'sadoptionofthe l NewPlanpromotedchoiceandequitableaccesstoBPSresourcesfor h allstudentsintheBPSsystem,aswellasdiversity,thereis  nothinginthatmixofgoalsorthemeansofachievingthemthat p  triggersstrictscrutinyunderourownprecedentsorthoseofthe !l" SupremeCourt. "$   c.Disproportionateeffect t$& 7  ` Havingrejectedplaintiffs'claimsthatthehistoryof  &p!( theNewPlan'sadoption,anditsstatedgoalofdiversity,require '#* theapplicationofstrictscrutinyreview,wenowturntotheir x)$, evidenceregardingtheimpactoftheNewPlan.Aswepreviously $+t&. noted,adisproportionateracialeffectofapolicycanbeevidence  ofaninvidiousdiscriminatorypurpose.Althoughplaintiffscite \ to"individualexamplesoftheracialeffect"ofthe50%reduction X inwalkzoneseatsundertheNewPlan,theyneitherdescribethese   examplesasa"disproportionateeffect"noracceptthatanysuch `  disproportionateeffectoftheNewPlanisrelevanttoestablishing  \  defendants'purportedlyraciallydiscriminatorypurpose.Instead,   theyarguethattheirindividualexamplessufficetoestablishan d  equalprotectionviolation.Beforeexplaininghowplaintiffs `  apparentlymisunderstandtherelevantcaselawandtheirresultant   evidentiaryburdeninthiscase,wefirstrecounttheevidencethey h presentedontheracialeffectoftheNewPlan. d  ` Toestablishtheallegedlydiscriminatoryeffectofthe  NewPlan'sreductionofthewalkzonepreferencefrom100%to50% l ofavailableseats,plaintiffsreliedexclusivelyonthetestimony h ofAnnWalsh,presidentofBoston'sChildrenFirst.d #  18      ׀Although  Walshtestifiedthatshereviewedadmissionsdatafrom"every p  schoolinthecity,"sheonlypresenteddataforthe200203 !l" admissionroundsforoneclassineachofthreeschools:apre "$ kindergartenprogramattheWolfgangAmadeusMozartElementary t$& School,andtwokindergartenprogramsattheRichardJ.Murphy  ElementarySchoolandtheMaryLyonElementarySchool.Walsh \ testifiedthatsheselectedtheseparticularschoolsbecauseshe X "lookedforschoolswithwhitewalkerswhowerepushedasidebythe   [changetoa]50%[walkzonepreference],and[thesethreeschools `  were]anexampleofthat."  \   ` Walshpreparedonepagechartsforeachoftheseschools,   comparingtheracialdemographicsofstudentswhowereadmittedto d  theselectedclassesundertheNewPlan,withits50%walkzone `  preference,totheracialdemographicsofstudentswhowouldhave   beenadmittedifafull100%oftheseatshadbeenreservedfor h studentswholivedwithinthewalkzone.Walsh'stestimony,and d thechartsshepreparedforthislitigation,showthatinthethree  elementaryschoolsoutofthe85orsointheBPSsystematotal l oftwentywhitestudentswhowouldhavebeenadmittedundera h hypothetical100%walkzonepreferencewerenotadmittedunderthe  actual50%walkzonepreference.Inplaintiffs'view,withthis p  showingof"individualexamplesoftheracialeffect"ofthechange !l" inthewalkzonepreference,therewasnoneedtoengageinany "$ systemwideanalysisoftheracialimpactofthewalkzoneseat t$& reduction.Indeed,Walshdidnotattempttoprojectasystemwide  &p!( impactfromherthreeschoolanalysis.Walshexplicitlytestified '#* thatsheis"opposedtotheconceptthattheoverallimpactonthe x)$, schoolsystemistheissue." $+t&.  ` Plaintiffserredinthisminimalistapproachtotheir  evidentiaryburdeninthiscase.Tobesure,theEqualProtection \ Clauseprotectsindividuals:"rightscreatedbythefirstsection X oftheFourteenthAmendmentare,byitsterms,guaranteedtothe   individual.Therightsestablishedarepersonalrights."Shelley `  v.Kraemer,334U.S.1,22(1948).Whenagovernmentalpolicy  \  employsovertracialclassifications,theimpactofraceonan   individualoutcomeisclear.Aswehaveexplained,courtswill d  thenapplystrictscrutinytodeterminewhethertheuseofthe `  racialclassificationisnarrowlytailoredtoserveacompelling   stateinterest.See,e.g.,Gratzv.Bollinger,539U.S.244,275 h 76(2003).AswediscussinfrainPartIII.D.,theOldPlanused d explicitracialguidelines,andtwoplaintiffsinthiscaseJohn  FeeneyandKathleenMcCoyshowedthattheyweredeniedseatsat l theirschoolsofchoiceundertheOldPlanbecauseoftheirrace h andtheimpositionofracialcapsinforceatthattime.  Accordingly,theywereawardednominaldamagesinrecognitionof p  thatinjury. !l"  ` Incontrast,whenevaluatingafaciallyraceneutral "$ policy,theimpactofraceonanindividualoutcomeisnotalways t$& immediatelyclear.Courtscanonlyinferthataninvidiousracial  &p!( purposemotivatedafaciallyneutralpolicywhenthatpolicy '#* createsdisproportionateracialresults."Sometimesaclear x)$, pattern,unexplainableongroundsotherthanrace,emergesfromthe $+t&. effectofthestateactionevenwhenthegoverninglegislation  appearsneutralonitsface."VillageofArlingtonHeightsv. \ MetropolitanHousingDev.Corp.,429U.S.252,266(1977)(emphasis X added).SeealsoWashingtonv.Davis,426U.S.229,242(1976)   ("aninvidiousdiscriminatorypurposemayoftenbeinferredfrom `  thetotalityoftherelevantfacts,includingthefact,ifitis  \  true,thatthelawbearsmoreheavilyononeracethananother.").    ` Inthiscontext,showingonlyisolatedinstancesof d  studentsnotreceivingassignmentsattheirfirstchoiceschoolsis `  insufficient.Here,thereisnoclearpatternofdisparateracial   impact,muchlessthe"stark"patterncontemplatedbyArlington h Heights.Id.("AbsentapatternasstarkasthatinGomillionor d YickWo,impactaloneisnotdeterminative...% j %j/.% m %m0")(footnotes  omitted).Atmost,plaintiffshaveestablishedthatinthree l schoolsthereductionfrom100%to50%ofseatssetasidefor h studentsinthewalkzoneresultedintwentywhitestudents,outof  theapproximately25,000orsoelementary(K5)studentsintheBPS p  system,notbeingassignedtotheirfirstchoiceschool.More !l" relevantly,Walsh'sownchartsshowthatsevenofthetwenty "$ studentswhoactuallywereassignedtothedisputedseatswere t$& white,meaningthattheimpactonwhitesasagroupwasanetloss  &p!( ofthirteenseats.` #  19      ׀Isolatedexamplesthatonlyshowasmallnet '#* lossofseatstowhitestudentsinselectedschoolsisafarcry  fromshowingthattheNewPlandisproportionatelyaffectswhite \ studentsintheBPSsystem.Infact,asthedistrictcourt X emphasized,evenwiththereductioninwalkzoneseats,"inthe   20022003schoolyear,80percentofwhiteapplicantsreceived `  theirfirstchoiceofschools,ascomparedto77percentofblack  \  applicants."BCFIV,260F.Supp.2dat332.    ` Evenifthisshowingcouldbecharacterizedasevidence d  ofadisproportionateeffect,acharacterizationwhichwereject, `  the"individualexamplesoftheracialeffect"citedbyplaintiffs   areexplainable"ongroundsotherthanrace."ArlingtonHeights, h 429U.S.at266.Asthedistrictcourtfound,plaintiffs"havenot d beenabletoshow[]thatthelosswasduetodiscrimination...  .Rather,asdefendantspointout,whitestudentshavebeendenied l admissiontocertainschools,notbecausetheywereforcedto h competeonanonlevelplayingfield,butbecausetheirparents  havetendedtooverchoosethesesameschools."BCFIV,260F. p  Supp.2dat332.IfplaintiffshadbeenabletoshowthattheNew !l" Planresultedinstarksystemwideracialdisparitiesregarding "$ assignmentstofirstchoiceschools,wemightdependingonthe t$& circumstanceshavereachedtheconclusionthatintentional  &p!( discriminationoccurredandsoadoptastricterstandardof '#* scrutinyinassessingjustification.Plaintiffschose,however,to  eschewsuchanalysis. \  ` TheBCFIVcourtrightlyconcludedthatplaintiffs' X evidencefailstoshowanydisproportionateeffectoftheNew   Policy. `  ` ` [I]twasopentoplaintiffstoshowthatthe  \  reductioninthewalkzonepreferencehashad  2  adisproportionateimpactonwhitechildren,   thatis,thatagreaterpercentageofwhite   studentshavefoundthemselvesshutoutof d  theirneighborhoodschools.Thisplaintiffs :  havenotdone. `  ` :<` ,<H<Id.at33132.Withplaintiffshavingshownnoracial   classificationatplayintheNewPlan,nodiscriminatorypurpose h foritsadoption,andnodiscriminatoryeffectofitsapplication, d wecannotconcludethattheplan"insomesensewasdesignedto  accorddisparatetreatmentonthebasisofracialconsiderations." l Washingtonv.SeattleSchoolDist.,458U.S.457,485(1982). h Consequently,thedistrictcourtcorrectlyheldthattheNewPlan  wasnotsubjecttostrictscrutiny.i #  20       p     3.RationalBasisReview "$ 4A ` Instead,sinceracebasedclassificationsarenotinplay   andplaintiffsfailedtoshowthattheNewPlanwasadoptedwitha \ discriminatorypurpose,theNewPlanmustonlysurviverational X basisreview:aslongastheplanisrationallyrelatedtoa   legitimategovernmentalinterest,itmustbeupheld.See,e.g., `  Romerv.Evans,517U.S.620,631(1996)(holdingthat"ifalaw  \  neitherburdensafundamentalrightnortargetsasuspectclass,we   willupholdthelegislativeclassificationsolongasitbearsa d  rationalrelationtosomelegitimateend"). `   ` Aswehaveexplainedatsomelength,defendantsadopted   theNewPlantofoster"excellence,equityanddiversitythrough h accessandeducationalopportunitythroughouttheBostonPublic d Schools."Allofthosegoalsarelegitimatestateinterests,and  theassignmentprocessoftheNewPlanisrationallyrelatedto l achievingthem.Plaintiffsdonotcontendotherwise.Again,we h thinkthedistrictcourtsaiditwell:  ` ` BecausetheSchoolCommitteehasrescindedthe p  useofanyformofracialclassification, F ! directorindirect,intheNewChoicePlan, !l" itsstatedobjectivesofpreservingparental !B# choiceandopportunity,particularlyfor "$ parentswhowouldotherwiseberestrictedin #% theirchoiceofschools,andoffostering t$& schoolexcellencebypermittingparentsto J% ' votewiththeirfeet,satisfythe  &p!( reasonablenesstest. &F")  ` F` FFBCFIV,260F.Supp.2dat333. (#+  ` Accordingly,werejectplaintiffs'claimsthattheNew  PlanviolatestheirrightsundertheEqualProtectionClauseofthe \ FourteenthAmendment,TitleVI,or1981and1983. X    4.Article111Claim   J ` Althoughplaintiffsargueintheiropeningbrieftothis `  courtthattheOldPlanviolatedArticle111oftheAmendmentsto  \  theMassachusettsDeclarationofRights,theyonlysummarilystate   oncethat"theDistrictCourtshouldhavesubjectedtheNewPlanto d  StrictScrutinyunderArticle111,"(emphasisadded),citingto `  Comfortexrel.Neumyerv.LynnSchoolComm.,283F.Supp.2d328   (D.Mass.2003)withoutcomment.Whenapartyincludesno h developedargumentationonapoint,asisthecasehere,wetreat d theargumentaswaivedunderourwellestablishedrule.SeeUnited  Statesv.Bongiorno,106F.3d1027,1034(1stCir.1997)("Wehave l steadfastlydeemedwaivedissuesraisedonappealinaperfunctory h manner,notaccompaniedbydevelopedargumentation.").   ` Wemaketwopoints,however.First,inthecontextof p  arguingthattheOldPlanviolatedArticle111,plaintiffsclaim !l" thatthe"ComfortCourtheldthatunderArt.111,schoolassignment "$ plansthatdenystudentsanassignmenttotheirneighborhood t$& schoolsaresubjecttostrictscrutiny...."Thismisstates  &p!( Comfort.Comfort,237F.Supp.2dat366("Irecognize...the '#* needtoproceedwithcaution....[A]lthoughIamconvincedby x)$, amicithatintermediatescrutinyisthecorrecttesttoapplyhere, $+t&. myanalysisbelowwillapplythemorerigorousstandardwhichthe  partieshavebriefed,strictscrutiny.")Second,andmore \ importantly,givenourdispositionofthefederalclaims,wewould X notfindthattheNewPlanassignsstudents"onthebasisofrace,   color,nationaloriginorcreed."Mass.Const.amend.art.111. `     C.0 @` ProspectiveInjunctiveReliefS   \  S ` Injunctiverelief #  21      ׀isadiscretionaryremedy.Thus, $  appellatecourtstypicallyreviewgrantsordenialsofsuchrelief   onlyforabuseofdiscretion.CarolineT.v.HudsonSchoolDist., ,|  915F.2d752,754(1stCir.1990).However,totheextentthatthe ( dispositionoftherequestforaninjunctionturnsonanissueof  law,suchaslackofstandingormootness,appellatecourtsreview 0 suchdeterminationsdenovo.SeeLangloisv.AbingtonHousing , Authority,207F.3d43,47(1stCir.2000)(observingthatalthough  injunctionsaretypicallyreviewedforabuseofdiscretion,"the 4 standardofreviewobviouslydependsontheissueunder 0 consideration.Generallyspeaking,pureissuesoflaw...are   revieweddenovo,findingsoffactforclearerror,and'judgment 8!" calls'withconsiderabledeferencedependingupontheissue.") "@$  ` Plaintiffsarguethatthedistrictcourterredby  dismissingtheirrequestforaninjunctionagainstBPS'sfutureuse \ ofracebecauseofalackofstanding,citingtoBCFII,98F. X Supp.2dat117andBCFIII,183F.Supp.2dat395,without   quotinganylanguageofthedistrictcourt.Plaintiffsmisreadthe `  districtcourt'sholdings.Thedistrictcourtinfactdidnot  \  dismisstheplaintiffs'requestforaprohibitoryinjunctionfor   lackofstanding.AsitnotedinitsMay21,2002Memorandumand d  Orderregardingthisstandingissue: `  ` ` InaJanuary25,2002MemorandumandOrder   [BCFIII],thecourtfoundthatwhile  plaintiffslackedstandingtopursueimmediate h injunctiverelief(giventheabsenceofany > cognizableinjury),therewasastrong d possibilitythatoneormoreplaintiffshad : standingtoseekprospectivereliefenjoining  anyraciallybasedallocationofwalkzone  preferences....Consequently,thecourt l affordedplaintiffsanopportunity"for B furtherbriefingoftheLesageissues h identifiedinthisopinion,aswellasissues > ofaconstitutionaldimensionraisedbythe  SchoolCommittee'swalkzonepreference  policy."[citingBCFIII,183F.Supp.2dat p  403.] F ! ` \` \&\Boston'sChildrenFirstv.BostonSchoolComm.,No.Civ.A.99 !B# 11330RGS,2002WL1058923,at*1(D.Mass.May21,2002)(citation #% omitted)("May21Order").The"Lesageissues"identifiedinthis J% ' May21OrderrelatetothestandingandmootnessdiscussioninBCF &F") III,183F.Supp.2dat39295. (#+  ` IntheMay21Order,whichaddressed,interalia, N*%- plaintiffs'standingtoseektherequestedprohibitoryinjunction, +J'/ thedistrictcourtexplainedthatsevenofthetenplaintiffsa #  22        either"attestedtohavingappliedforyear20022003admissionto \ schoolswithintheirwalkzones"or"attest[ed]totheirintention X toremainintheBostonpublicschoolsystemtoapplyformiddle   schoolassignmentswithintheirrespectivewalkzones."May21 `  Orderat*1.Thedistrictcourtthenconcludedthat"underLesage  \  each[oftheseven]hasdemonstratedstandingtoseekforward   lookingrelief."Id. d   ` Here,then,thedistrictcourtexplicitlyheldthatseven `  oftheplaintiffshadstandingtoseekaninjunctionprohibiting   BPSfromtheunconstitutionaluseofraceinfutureassignment h systems.AscanbeseenfromboththeMay21Orderandthe d treatmentofplaintiffs'requestforforwardlookingreliefinBCF  IV,whichwediscussnext,thedistrictcourtdidnotdismissthis l claimforwantofstanding.Accordingly,wecandispensewithany h furtheranalysisonthatground.   ` Afterabenchtrialonthemerits,thedistrictcourt p  deniedplaintiffs'requeststoenjoindefendantsfromthefuture !l" useofraceandtoretainjurisdictionovertheassignmentsystem. "$  BCFIV,260F.Supp.2dat33334.Plaintiffsclaimthatthe t$& districtcourtmisappliedCityofMesquitev.Aladdin'sCastle,  Inc.,455U.S.283(1982)insoruling.Therewasnosucherror. \   ` WediscussedCityofMesquiteinNewEnglandRegional X CouncilofCarpentersv.Kinton,284F.3d9(1stCir.2002),where   weheldthatwhenagovernmentalentityrevisedachallengedpolicy `  toremovetheoffendinglanguage,plaintiffs'claimforinjunctive  \  reliefwasmooted.Id.at18.DirectlyaddressingtheSupreme   Court'sdecisioninCityofMesquite,weexplainedthattheSupreme d  Courthad"heldthat'avoluntarycessationofachallenged `  practicedoesnotdepriveafederalcourtofitspowertodetermine   thelegalityofthepractice.'"Id.(quotingCityofMesquite,455 h U.S.at289).ThisispreciselytheCityofMesquitelanguageupon d whichplaintiffsrely.AswemadeclearinKinton,though,this  relianceismisplaced:"Undercircuitprecedent...theCityof l Mesquiteexceptionapplies'onlywhenthereisareasonable h expectationthatthechallengedconductwillberepeatedfollowing  dismissalofthecase.'"Kinton,284F.3dat18(quotingD.H.L. p  Assocs.,Inc.v.O'Gorman,199F.3d50,55(1stCir.1999)).There !l" isnosuchreasonableexpectationhere.Asthedistrictcourt "$ observedinBCFIV:"Mereskepticism...aboutthedefendants' t$& futureintentions[]cannotjustifythetypeofjudicial  &p!( interventionthatplaintiffsseek."BCFIV,260F.Supp.2dat '#*  333. x)$,  ` Whetherthisrulingischaracterizedasonebasedon   mootnessconcerns(revieweddenovo)oronthemerits(reviewedfor \ abuseofdiscretion),wefindthatthedistrictcourtdidnoterr X indenyingplaintiffs'claimsforaninjunctionprohibitingBPS   fromtheunconstitutionaluseofraceinfuturestudentassignment `  plans.Defendantshavevoluntarilyabandonedtheunconstitutional  \  useofraceinallofitsstudentassignmentsystems,andtheyhave   expressedintestimonyandinletterstotheRacialImbalance d  AdvisoryCouncilandtheBoardofEducationtheirstrongdesireto `  complywithconstitutionalrequirementsinallfutureassignment   systems.AswehavediscussedsuprainPartIII.B.2.b,the h defendants'commitmenttodiversityisnotperseconstitutionally d suspect.Whilethereisampleevidencethatdefendantswill  continuetomonitorrelevantschooldemographicsandwillconsider l modifyingthecurrentassignmentsystemtomeetalloftheirstated h goals,includingdiversity,plaintiffshavebeenunabletoshowany  reasonableexpectationthatdefendantswillreturnto p  unconstitutionalmeanstoachievethosegoals.Accordingly,wesee !l" noreasontooverturnthedistrictcourt'sdenialoftherequested "$ prohibitoryinjunction. t$&    D.NominalDamages   &p!( x ` Finally,inBCFV,thedistrictcourtfoundthatonlytwo '8#* plaintiffsweredeniedtheirpreferredchoiceofschoolsbecauseof )$, theirraceundertheOldPlan,andtothosetwoplaintiffsthe @+&. districtcourtawardednominaldamages.BCFV,at2(awarding  $1.00eachtoJohnFeeneyandKathleenMcCoy).t #  23      ׀Onappeal,the \ eightremainingplaintiffsseeknominaldamagesaswell,claiming X thatthedistrictcourterredintworegards.    ` First,plaintiffsstatethat `  ` ` [i]tisimpossibletodeconstructwhat  \  assignmentswouldhavebeenmadeundertheOld  2  Planhadracenotbeenafactor.TheBPS   DirectorofRecordsManagementadmittedthat   hecouldnotsimulateforhow[sic]choices d  wouldhavechangedhadtheracialcapsandset :  asidesoftheOldPlannotbeeninplace. `  ` ,{` :{H{Plaintiffsprovidenocitationtosupportthiscontention,andthe   districtcourtfoundasamatteroffactthatBPSdidindeed h demonstratethattheothereightplaintiffswerenotdeniedseats d attheirpreferredschoolsbecauseofrace.SeeBCFIII,183F.  Supp.2dat38791(detailingtheassignmenthistoriesofeach l plaintiff);seealsoBCFV.Aswereviewfactualdeterminations h forclearerror,Wessmann,160F.3dat795,andplaintiffshave  pointedtonorecordevidencetocontradictthedistrictcourt's  relevantfactualfindings,weleavethemundisturbedonappeal. \  ` Second,plaintiffsclaimthatthedistrictcourtmisread X Texasv.Lesage,528U.S.18(1999)(percuriam).InLesage,the   UniversityofTexasdeniedaCaucasianapplicantadmissiontoa `  Ph.D.programwhileadmittingatleastoneminoritycandidate.The  \  partiesagreedthat"theschoolconsideredtheraceofits   applicantsatsomestageduringthereviewprocess."Id.at19. d  TheUniversityshowedthat"eveniftheschool'sadmissionsprocess `  hadbeencompletelycolorblind,Lesagewouldnothavebeen   admitted."Id.TheSupremeCourtheldthatifadefendant h "conclusivelyestablishedthat[plaintiff]wouldhavebeenrejected d underaraceneutralpolicy,"damagesarenotavailable.Id.at  20.TheCourtcouldnothavebeenclearer:"Thegovernmentcan l avoidliabilitybyprovingthatitwouldhavemadethesame h decisionwithouttheimpermissiblemotive."Id.at21(emphasis  added). p   ` Plaintiffsclaimthatthe"samedecision"defenseset !l" forthinLesageisnotavailableagainstclaimsfornominaldamages "$ forconstitutionalviolations.PlaintiffsmisreadLesageinmaking t$& thisargument.Lesagemakesnodistinctionamongtheclassesof  &p!( damagesthatbecomeunavailableupondefendants'showingthatthey '#*  wouldhavereachedthesameadmissionsresultevenintheabsence x)$, ofanunconstitutionaluseofrace.Lesage,528U.S.at20.  Lesageisunambiguous: \  ` ` Simplyput,whereaplaintiffchallengesa X discretegovernmentaldecisionasbeingbased . onanimpermissiblecriterionanditis   undisputedthatthegovernmentwouldhavemade   thesamedecisionregardless,thereisno `  cognizableinjurywarrantingreliefunder 6   1983.  \  ` ` &Id.at21.Lesagedidnotlimitthisholdingtocompensatory   damagesorqualifythetypeofreliefinanyway,otherthanto d  mentionthatthecasearoseunder1983.Thereisnodoubtthat `  nominaldamagesareoneoftheformsofreliefavailableunder   1983.SeeFarrarv.Hobby,506U.S.103,112(1992)(statingthat h ina1983action,SupremeCourtprecedent"obligatesacourtto d awardnominaldamageswhenaplaintiffestablishestheviolationof  hisrighttoproceduraldueprocessbutcannotproveactualinjury.") l  ` AsFarrarexplains,wherethereisadeprivationof h constitutionalrightsthatdonotresultinan"actualinjury"  givingrisetocompensatorydamages,nominaldamagesarethe p  appropriateremedy.SeealsoCareyv.Piphus,435U.S.247,266 !l" (1978).However,Lesagemakesclearthatwhenthegovernmental "$ entitywouldhavemadethesamedecisionevenwithoutthe t$& impermissibleconsiderationofraceasitdidhereforeightof  &p!( theplaintiffsthereisnodeprivationofconstitutionalrightsat '#*  all.Lesage,528U.S.at21.Withoutadeprivationof x)$, constitutionalrights,liabilitywillnotattach,anddamages  nominal,compensatory,orotherwisecannotbeimposed.Id. \   ` Insum,wefindnoerrorinthedistrictcourt'sfactual X findingsthattheeightplaintiffsseekingnominaldamageson   appealwouldnothavebeenadmittedtotheschooloftheirchoice `  evenifBPShadnotimpermissiblyconsideredraceundertheOld  \  Plan.Further,wefindnoerrorinthedistrictcourt's   applicationofLesageandotherrelevantprecedenttothe d  plaintiffs'claimsfornominaldamages. `     IV.     ` ThiscasecomestousinthesemicentenaryyearofBrown  v.BoardofEducation,347U.S.483(1954).There,theSupreme 0 Courtdescribedtheimportanceofpubliceducation: , ` ` Today,educationisperhapsthemostimportant  functionofstateandlocalgovernments. ^ Compulsoryschoolattendancelawsandthe 4 greatexpendituresforeducationboth  Z demonstrateourrecognitionoftheimportance 0 ofeducationtoourdemocraticsociety.Itis  requiredintheperformanceofourmostbasic   publicresponsibilities,evenserviceinthe b ! armedforces.Itistheveryfoundationof 8!" goodcitizenship.Todayitisaprincipal "^# instrumentinawakeningthechildtocultural "4$ values,inpreparinghimforlater # % professionaltraining,andinhelpinghimto $& adjustnormallytohisenvironment.Inthese f% ' days,itisdoubtfulthatanychildmay <&!( reasonablybeexpectedtosucceedinlifeif 'b") heisdeniedtheopportunityofaneducation. '8#* ` -` ;IBrown,347U.S.at493.Giventhesehighstakesintheaccessto )$, publiceducation,itisnotsurprisingthatthiscaseandthose @+&. thatprecededithaveinspireddeeppassionsamongthepartiesand  theirsupporters.Indeed,inhistoriesalreadywrittenaboutthe \ aftermathofBrowninourlargecities,Bostonhasoftenbeencited X asacitythatresistedfiercelythemandateofBrownandthe   measuresrequiredtodismantleapublicschoolsystemsegregatedby `  governmentaction.  \   ` Hopefully,futurehistorieswillalsotelltherestof   thestory.AttitudesinBostonhaveevolved,policieshave d  changed,institutionshavereorganized.Inmanyways,thesocial `  fabrichasbeenreknit.Butthishealinghasnotloweredthe   stakesinpubliceducation.Peopleofgoodfaith,harboringonly h thebestofintentions,cananddodisagreeabouttheultimate d resolutionofthedifficultlegalandsocialissuesthatsurround  publiceducationgenerallyandschoolassignmentsystems l specifically.Thesecontinuingdisagreementsdonotdiminishall h thathasbeenaccomplished.  Ѐ ` Intheend,wearegratefultothepartiesandtheir p  attorneys,aswellastheamicuscuriae,whoseadvocacyhas !l" illuminatedthedifficultissuesbeforeus.Wealsoexpressour "$ appreciationtotheabledistrictcourtjudgeswhothoughtfullyand t$& thoroughlyaddressedthemanycomplexanddifficultissuesinthis  &p!( case.Thefactfindingandcarefulreasoningsetforthinthefour '#* publishedopinionsinthiscasehavesignificantlyaidedourreview x)$, onappeal. $+t&.  ` Foralloftheforegoingreasons,thejudgmentsofthe  districtcourtare AFFIRMED inallrespects.Nocostsshallbe \ awarded. $t  ` Soordered. # XXXXZ#