John Roberts
From Judgepedia
Biography
On the Issues
Abortion
Antitrust
Capital Punishment/Death Penalty
Criminal Punishment
The Drug War
Discrimination/Equal Protection
In June, 2007, Chief Justice Roberts authored the plurality opinion in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1.
At issue was whether it was constutionally permissible for a public school district, and particularly those that had not operated segregated schools in the past, to (1) classify students by race and (2) rely upon such racial classifications in making school assignments.
The school districts involved voluntarily adopted student assignment plans that relied upon race to determine which public schools certain children may attend. The Seattle school district classified children as white or nonwhite, and the Jefferson County (Louisvile, KY) school district as black or “other.” In Seattle, this racial classification was used to allocate slots in oversubscribed high schools. In Jefferson County, it was used to make certain elementary school assignments and to rule on transfer requests. In each case, the school districts relied upon an individual student's race in assigning that student to a particular school, so that the racial balance at the school fell within a predetermined range based on the racial composition of the school district as a whole. Parents of students denied assignment to particular schools under these plans solely because of their race brought suit, contending that allocating children to different public schools on the basis of race violated the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection.
The Majority Opinion
In writing for the plurality, Chief Justice Roberts took the following positions:
"Here the racial balance the districts seek is a defined range set solely by reference to the demographics of the respective school districts. This working backward to achieve a particular type of racial balance, rather than working forward from some demonstration of the level of diversity that provides the purported benefits, is a fatal flaw under our existing precedent."
Roberts referenced the following cases in order to affirm his position:
- Freeman, 503 U.S.
- Richmond v. J.A. Croson, Co.
- Bakke, 438 U.S.
Interpretation
Accepting racial balancing as a compelling state interest 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." as was stated in Miller v. Johnson.
- The principle that racial balancing is not permitted is one of substance, not semantics. Racial balancing is not transformed from “patently unconstitutional” to a compelling state interest simply by relabeling it “racial diversity.”
Simply because the school districts may seek a worthy goal does not mean they are free to discriminate on the basis of race to achieve it, or that their racial classifications should be subject to less exacting scrutiny.
