This would still make the pursuit of racial diversity a compelling state interest, and give school districts guidance on how to structure their plans.

", Justice Stephen G. Breyer, in the principal dissenting opinion, dismissed Justice Kennedy's proposed alternatives to the labeling and sorting of individual students by race and, in a surprisingly emotional 20 minute speech from the bench, denounced the majority opinion.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit.

The School Board contends that the JCPS plan is constitutionally sound under the Court’s Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence, because the plan is narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling state interest of racial integration. Jennifer Holladay, Brown v. Board: Timeline of School Integration in the U.S., Teaching Tolerance, Spring 2004. When questioned about the close timing, Gordon stated that all the District had to do was "push a button" to change things over to a plan compliant with the Court's ruling. See Brief for Respondent at 12 n.13.

While both schools have race-conscious student assignment plans designed to integrate individual schools, they take different approaches to achieve this end.

At a particular school either whites or non-whites could be favored for admission depending on which race would bring the racial balance closer to the goal. 1, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parents_Involved_in_Community_Schools_v._Seattle_School_District_No._1&oldid=925521151, United States school desegregation case law, United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court, Jefferson County Public Schools (Kentucky), United States affirmative action case law, Articles needing additional references from May 2009, All articles needing additional references, Articles with unsourced statements from February 2017, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Id. 2d at 860 n.48. With respect to avoiding racial isolation, Kennedy wrote, "A compelling interest exists in avoiding racial isolation, an interest that a school district, in its discretion and expertise, may choose to pursue. The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky found that the school system had a compelling interest in promoting student diversity, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger.

The plan takes into account student choice, available space in a school, and the current racial makeup of the school. Second, "the interest in diversity in higher education", as upheld in, This page was last edited on 10 November 2019, at 17:30. 1, the Court will consider whether promoting diversity in mandatory public education is a compelling state interest.

The Court’s decision also rests on the degree of deference it will give to JCPS. A non-profit group, Parents Involved in Community Schools, sued the District, arguing that the racial tiebreaker violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Washington state law. The vast majority of the amicus briefs filed for JCPS laud the pedagogical and societal benefits of racially integrated classrooms.

He made it clear that "To be forced to live under a state-mandated racial label is inconsistent with the dignity of individuals in our society". Because all JCPS schools are equal, the argument goes, the plan does not distribute limited goods at the expense of others.


Nor does social science currently support the conclusion that desegregation increases long-term outcomes like college attendance, years of school completed, future salary, or social outcomes like positive racial attitudes and increased racial understanding.

Acting on Joshua’s behalf, Meredith joined several other plaintiffs in a suit against JCPS alleging that the assignment plan violated their equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Asian, Hispanic, White, etc. '"[13], Part III B[10] (joined only by a plurality of the Court) rejected the notion that racial balancing could be a compelling state interest, as to do so "would justify the imposition of racial proportionality throughout American society, contrary to our repeated recognition that "[a]t the heart of the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection lies the simple command that the Government must treat citizens as individuals, not as simply components of a racial, religious, sexual or national class. The court dismissed each plaintiff’s claim individually and held that Joshua was not unduly harmed by his transfer denial because the schools offered equal services. Some see this trend as proof that courts have failed to deliver the “[u]nfinished promise of Brown.” Brief for Howard University School of Law as Amicus Curiae for Respondent at 17.

Affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws, Affirmative action and anti-discrimination lawsuits, Consideration of race in college admissions, United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Meredith_v._Jefferson_County&oldid=7674529, Submit a photo, survey, video, conversation, or bio, Ballotpedia's Daily Presidential News Briefing, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. It is this part that went before the US Supreme Court as the other two cases were not appealed by JCPS. The Board asserts that student assignment is both a basic function of school boards and one that requires boards to balance elusive factors like facility and program capacity, school popularity, and demographics. The student assignment plan of Seattle Public Schools and Jefferson County Public Schools does not meet the narrowly tailored and compelling interest requirements for a race-based assignment plan because it is used only to achieve "racial balance."

at 7. Here, Roberts provides the following string citation: Here Roberts cites: "See 539 U.S., at 320, 123 S. Ct. 2325, 156 L. Ed. Nonetheless, Bakke was used to uphold the validity of affirmative action programs that fostered diversity in higher education for a quarter of a century. Id. Race is the “make or break test” to determine whether a student is admitted into a particular school. at 40. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. at 12. Both systems rely primarily on a student’s choice, and use a miscellany of factors including race to determine where a child will attend school.

These lessons are even more “important and laudable” as they were in Grutter because primary and secondary students are still forming their opinions. The conservative Roberts Court ruled that school assignments cannot be solely based on race.

Meredith finally questions whether the plan is truly seeking “diversity” rather than engaging in unconstitutional “outright racial balancing,” Grutter, 539 U.S. at 330, because it only recognizes race and not other factors such as musical talent, athletic prowess, or life experience. Public schools may not use race as the sole determining factor for assigning students to schools. Brief for Petitioner at 3. 2d 854 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part [*2761] and concurring in judgment), Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education, "Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No.

However, Roberts considers that this interest is not compelling and that the use of race for this goal is not narrowly tailored, it is instead used for racial balancing, which is unconstitutional.

It is my firm conviction that no Member of the Court that I joined in 1975 would have agreed with today's decision. First, Meredith is skeptical about whether an integrated schoolroom confers any educational or social benefit. The court’s ruling relied primarily on the Supreme Court’s holding in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003). Brief for Petitioner at 5; U.S. Brief at 6.

"[2], According to Kennedy, "The cases here were argued upon the assumption, and come to us on the premise, that the discrimination in question did not result from de jure actions." McFarland, 330 F. Supp. [3] All of the dissenting Justices acknowledged that "the Constitution does not impose a duty to desegregate upon districts" if they have not practiced racial discrimination. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (U.S. 2007).

Id., at 338, 123 S. Ct. 2325, 156 L. Ed.

However, the Court found that the program in Gratz was not narrowly tailored.

[1], The Parents Involved decision was a "split decision." The individual schools evaluate transfer applications and make determinations based on the special needs of the student and family, the school’s institutional capacity, and the need to stay within the racial guidelines.

Historically, the Court has been very adverse to rigid numerical targets. This plan is in place as of 2017.

Present and future societal discrimination alone is not sufficient to justify racial classification. Under the Supreme Court's precedents on racial classification in higher education, Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, race-based classifications must be directed toward a "compelling government interest" and must be "narrowly tailored" to that interest. See Robert Anglen, Feds End Desegregation Monitoring of District, Ariz. Republic, May 25, 2005.

Furthermore, Meredith argues that this treatment unduly burdened non-black children like Meredith’s son because treating individuals as nothing more than members of their race denigrates their sense of self-worth.

v. jefferson county board of education, et al.

The Board further concedes that the plan uses numbers. at 32. Id. In a footnote the Justice added a personal mention of Justice Breyer: "Justice Breyer's good intentions, which I do not doubt, have the shelf life of Justice Breyer's tenure. Specifically, Kennedy finds that the districts could have achieved the same goal through less racially charged means. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007), also known as the PICS case, is a United States Supreme Court case. (2007) [22] An interest "linked to nothing other than proportional representation of various races . U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Brief of United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioner, Brief of Armor, Thernstrom, and Thernstrom as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioner, Brief of the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, Inc. as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents, Brief for Howard University School of Law as Amicus Curiae for Respondent, Brief for American Council on Education as Amicus Curiae for Respondent, Brief for National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n and National Basketball Retired Players Association as Amicus Curiae for Respondent, Parents Involved in Community Sch.

Students are assigned to an attendance area based on their residence.

It points out that JCPS does not seek to eliminate past intentional discrimination, given that JCPS no longer suffered from vestiges of past discrimination.
He contended that whatever trends toward classroom racial imbalance have obtained, they were not the result of state-sanctioned segregation as in the pre-Brown era.

U.S. Brief at 7.