Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1

1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007), also known as the PICS case, is a United States Supreme Court case which found it unconstitutional for a school district to use race as a factor in assigning students to schools in order to bring its racial composition in line with the composition of the district as a whole, unless it was remedying a prior history of de jure segregation."[4] He went on to say, "What the government is not permitted to do, absent a showing of necessity not made here, is to classify every student on the basis of race and to assign each of them to schools based on that classification.Nonetheless, Bakke was used to uphold the validity of affirmative action programs that fostered diversity in higher education for a quarter of a century.To that end, in 2011, the U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Justice jointly issued Guidance on the Voluntary Use of Race to Achieve Diversity and Avoid Racial Isolation in Elementary and Secondary Schools, acknowledging the flexibility that school districts have in taking proactive steps to meet the compelling interests of promoting diversity and avoiding racial isolation within the parameters of current law.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.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.Part III A first reiterated that "when the government distributes burdens or benefits on the basis of individual racial classifications, that action is reviewed under strict scrutiny."[26] Part III C[13] addressed the school districts' claim that "the way in which they have employed individual racial classifications is necessary to achieve their stated ends."Jefferson County has failed to present any evidence that it considered alternatives, even though the district already claims that its goals are achieved primarily through means other than the racial classifications.He writes that Justice Breyer misused and misapplied previous Supreme Court precedents in this area and that he greatly exaggerates the consequences of the decision of this case.Justice Thomas goes on to call out the dissent for adopting segregationist reasoning advanced in Brown, particularly its insistence that the Court should defer to local school board knowledge, expertise, and judgment.In his concurrence, Kennedy differed with the plurality because, he found, the goal of obtaining a diverse student body is a compelling state interest.Kennedy's opinion also emphasized the risks posed by allowing for the proliferation of mechanically imposed individual race classifications of its citizens.Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a sharply worded short dissent in which he accused the plurality of misusing and misapplying previous Supreme Court precedents including Brown v. Board of Education.In the Justice's 77-page written opinion he called the ruling a "radical" step away from established law that would take from communities a critical tool used for many years in the prevention of resegregation.At a press conference the day of the opinion, Attorney for the Plaintiff Teddy Gordon stated that he would, if necessary, seek legal measures to prevent the use of the current Student Assignment Plan for the 2007–2008 school year.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.
Supreme Court of the United StatesJefferson County Board of EducationL. Ed. 2dUnited States courts of appealsSeattle Public SchoolsJefferson County Public SchoolsJohn RobertsJohn P. StevensAntonin ScaliaAnthony KennedyDavid SouterClarence ThomasRuth Bader GinsburgStephen BreyerSamuel AlitoU.S. Const. amend. XIVUnited States Supreme CourtChief Justice Robertsplurality opinionschool desegregationSeattle, WashingtonLouisville, Kentuckyracial segregation in schoolsU.S. Department of EducationU.S. Department of JusticeSeattle School DistrictWestern District of WashingtonU.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuiten bancGrutter v. BollingerGratz v. BollingerJefferson County Public Schools (JCPS)strict scrutinyRegents of Univ. of Cal. v. BakkeHarlanPlessyJohn Paul StevensBrown v. Board of EducationMendez v. WestminsterPlessy v. FergusonTape v. HurleySwann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of EducationGreen v. County School Board of New Kent CountyWayback MachineThe American ProspectAffirmative action in the United StatesSupreme CourtDeFunis v. OdegaardRegents of the University of California v. BakkeUnited States v. FordiceHopwood v. TexasFisher v. University of Texas ISchuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative ActionFisher v. University of Texas IICoalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School BoardStudents for Fair Admissions v. HarvardGriggs v. Duke Power Co.Morton v. MancariSchlesinger v. BallardHazelwood School District v. United StatesUnited Steelworkers v. WeberWygant v. Jackson Board of EducationJohnson v. Transportation AgencyWards Cove Packing Co. v. AtonioPiscataway School Board v. TaxmanRicci v. DeStefanoKahn v. ShevinCalifano v. WebsterFullilove v. KlutznickCity of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co.Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCCAdarand Constructors, Inc. v. PeñaAdarand Constructors, Inc. v. MinetalegislationedictsCivil Rights Act of 1866Equal Protection ClauseFourteenth AmendmentExecutive Order 10925Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964Executive Order 11246initiativesProposition 209Initiative 200Proposal 2Amendment 46Initiative 424Proposition 16Peter ArcidiaconoEdward BlumCarl CohenWard ConnerlyArthur FletcherRichard KahlenbergRichard SanderStuart Taylor Jr.Ron UnzUnited States Fourteenth AmendmentCitizenship ClauseSlaughter-House CasesMinor v. HappersettElk v. WilkinsUnited States v. Wong Kim ArkMackenzie v. HarePerez v. BrownellAfroyim v. RuskRogers v. BelleiSaenz v. RoeDue Process ClauseEconomic substantivedue processMugler v. KansasAllgeyer v. LouisianaHolden v. HardyLochner v. New YorkMuller v. OregonCoppage v. KansasBuchanan v. WarleyAdams v. TannerO'Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co.West Coast Hotel Co. v. ParrishRight to privacyMeyer v. NebraskaPierce v. Society of SistersGriswold v. ConnecticutRoe v. WadeDoe v. BoltonBowers v. HardwickWebster v. Reproductive Health ServicesPlanned Parenthood v. CaseyLawrence v. TexasWhole Woman's Health v. HellerstedtDobbs v. Jackson Women's Health OrganizationAbortion jurisprudenceUnited States v. VuitchPlanned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. DanforthBellotti v. Baird IColautti v. FranklinBellotti v. Baird IIH. L. v. MathesonCity of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive HealthThornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & GynecologistsHodgson v. MinnesotaMazurek v. ArmstrongStenberg v. CarhartAyotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New EnglandGonzales v. CarhartAzar v. GarzaBox v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc.June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo§ 1979 (42 U.S.C. 1983)Monroe v. PapeO'Connor v. DonaldsonPaul v. DavisImbler v. PachtmanMonell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New YorkOwen v. City of IndependenceHarlow v. FitzgeraldFelder v. CaseyWill v. Michigan Department of State PoliceGonzaga University v. DoeInyo County v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop CommunityCity of Rancho Palos Verdes v. AbramsFitzgerald v. Barnstable School CommitteeAshcroft v. IqbalLos Angeles County v. HumphriesConnick v. ThompsonJacobson v. MassachusettsZucht v. KingBuck v. BellPowell v. AlabamaMullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.NAACP v. AlabamaHoyt v. FloridaOyler v. BolesLoving v. VirginiaEpperson v. ArkansasIn re WinshipCleveland Board of Education v. LaFleurArnett v. KennedyTaylor v. LouisianaGoss v. LopezMathews v. EldridgeMoore v. City of East ClevelandDuren v. MissouriParham v. J.R.Parratt v. TaylorLogan v. Zimmerman Brush Co.Kolender v. LawsonHudson v. PalmerCleveland Board of Education v. LoudermillEdwards v. AguillardTurner v. SafleyDeShaney v. Winnebago CountyMichael H. v. Gerald D.Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of HealthWashington v. GlucksbergTroxel v. GranvilleCaperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.Obergefell v. HodgesWilliams v. PennsylvaniaPace v. AlabamaYick Wo v. HopkinsCumming v. Richmond County Board of EducationLum v. RiceHirabayashi v. United StatesKorematsu v. United StatesSipuel v. Board of Regents of the University of OklahomaShelley v. KraemerPerez v. SharpSweatt v. PainterMcLaurin v. Oklahoma State RegentsBriggs v. ElliottDavis v. County School Board of Prince Edward CountyGebhart v. BeltonLucy v. AdamsBrowder v. GayleAnderson v. MartinGriffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward CountyMcLaughlin v. FloridaReitman v. MulkeyLee v. WashingtonHunter v. EricksonUnited States v. Montgomery County Board of EducationAlexander v. Holmes County Board of EducationPalmer v. ThompsonCoit v. GreenGuey Heung Lee v. JohnsonKeyes v. School District No. 1, DenverNorwood v. HarrisonMilliken v. BradleyVillage of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.Palmore v. SidotiHunter v. UnderwoodBoard of Education of Oklahoma City v. DowellMissouri v. JenkinsStudents for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard CollegeBreedlove v. SuttlesGoesaert v. ClearyReed v. ReedMoritz v. CommissionerGeduldig v. AielloStanton v. StantonEdwards v. HealyCraig v. BorenOrr v. OrrParham v. HughesCaban v. MohammedPersonnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. FeeneyKirchberg v. FeenstraMichael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma CountyMississippi University for Women v. HoganJ.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B.United States v. VirginiaUnited States v. SkrmettiRomer v. EvansPatsone v. PennsylvaniaTruax v. RaichTerrace v. ThompsonWebb v. O'BrienTakahashi v. Fish and Game Comm'nHernandez v. TexasGraham v. RichardsonSugarman v. DougallExamining Board v. Flores de OteroNyquist v. MaucletAmbach v. NorwickCabell v. Chavez-SalidoPlyler v. DoeBernal v. FainterShapiro v. ThompsonArlington County Board v. RichardsMetropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. WardUnited States v. CruikshankSanta Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co.Skinner v. OklahomaOyama v. CaliforniaHarper v. Virginia State Board of ElectionsLevy v. LouisianaWilliams v. RhodesOregon v. MitchellBoddie v. ConnecticutEisenstadt v. BairdSan Antonio Independent School District v. RodriguezRichardson v. RamirezVillage of Belle Terre v. BoraasMassachusetts Board of Retirement v. MurgiaZablocki v. RedhailNew York City Transit Authority v. BeazerCity of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.Gregory v. AshcroftVacco v. QuillBush v. GoreEnforcement ClauseCivil Rights CasesKatzenbach v. MorganFitzpatrick v. BitzerCity of Boerne v. FloresFlorida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings BankKimel v. Florida Board of RegentsUnited States v. MorrisonBoard of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. GarrettNevada Department of Human Resources v. HibbsTennessee v. LaneUnited States v. GeorgiaShelby County v. HolderGold Clause CasesTrump v. Anderson