The Seattle and Louisville School Cases: There is No Other Way

Comment by J. Harvie Wilkinson III

In Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, the Supreme Court addressed two student assignment plans that relied upon race to determine which public schools certain children could attend. The Seattle suit challenged high school assignments; the Louisville action, elementary and middle school placements. The Court characterized each plan as voluntary rather than remedial and held that each violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

That judgment required Justice Kennedy’s crucial fifth vote, and his concurring opinion explicitly declined to rule out the achievement of diversity as a compelling educational interest or to eliminate the utilization of all race-conscious means. Nonetheless, Parents Involved goes a considerable way toward affirming that our common citizenship and shared humanity transcend differences of ethnicity and race and that a Republic riddled with race-conscious decisionmaking is not what America aspires to be.

Five Justices contributed opinions in this case, and the debate was as impassioned as one would expect a debate on race, schools, and the country’s past and future course to be. In general, these high stakes elicited a high quality of judicial discourse. Yet this battle brought no peace or even truce, and indeed left only the impression that the Court’s own decisions on the use of race in education remain in tension and that the profound differences that persist within the Court and throughout the country on these questions will be argued just as heatedly another day.

I propose to examine the five opinions in three groups: first the Roberts court and plurality opinion and Thomas concurrence; next the Kennedy opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment; and then the Stevens and Breyer dissents. As a judge of an inferior court, I approach my task with the deepest respect for the Court and its members and in the hope that the candor necessary for worthwhile commentary is but a mark of appreciation for the conscientious manner in which that fine institution goes about its work.



121 Harv. L. Rev. 158 (2007) | DOWNLOAD PDF | LEXIS NEXIS | WESTLAW



MORE FROM THIS ISSUE

FOREWORD: Constitutions and Capabilities: "Perception" Against Lofty Formalism

COMMENT: Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1: Voluntary Racial Integration in Public Schools

COMMENT: Justice Kennedy and the Domains of Equal Protection

COMMENT: The Supreme Court and Voluntary Integration

LEADING CASE: Constitutional Remedies — Bivens Damages — Takings Clause Retaliation: Wilkie v. Robbins.

LEADING CASE: Criminal Law and Procedure — Eighth Amendment — Death Penalty — Consideration of Mitigating Evidence: Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman; Brewer v. Quarterman.

LEADING CASE: Criminal Law and Procedure — Eighth Amendment — Death Penalty — Execution of the Presently Incompetent: Panetti v. Quarterman.

LEADING CASE: Criminal Law and Procedure — Fourth Amendment — Reasonableness of Forcible Seizure: Scott v. Harris.

LEADING CASE: Criminal Law and Procedure — Sixth Amendment — Allocation of Factfinding in Sentencing: Cunningham v. California.

LEADING CASE: Criminal Law and Procedure — Sixth Amendment — Death Qualification Decisions: Uttecht v. Brown.

LEADING CASE: Criminal Law and Procedure — Sixth Amendment — Federal Sentencing Guidelines — Presumption of Reasonableness: Rita v. United States.

LEADING CASE: Criminal Law and Procedure — Sixth Amendment — Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Schriro v. Landrigan.

LEADING CASE: Due Process — Abortion Rights — "Partial Birth" Abortion: Gonzales v. Carhart.

LEADING CASE: Due Process — Punitive Damages: Philip Morris USA v. Williams.

LEADING CASE: Freedom of Speech and Expression — Campaign Finance Regulation: FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.

LEADING CASE: Freedom of Speech and Expression — Student Speech: Morse v. Frederick.

LEADING CASE: Civil Procedure — Pleading Standards: Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly.

LEADING CASE: Jurisdictional Status of Rules — Statutory Time Limits to Appeal: Bowles v. Russell.

LEADING CASE: Standing — Taxpayer Standing — Establishment Clause Violations: Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc.

LEADING CASE: Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act — "Clearly Established Law" in Habeas Review: Carey v. Musladin.

LEADING CASE: Armed Career Criminal Act — Definition of "Violent Felony": James v. United States.

LEADING CASE: Civil Rights Act, Title VII — Statute of Limitations: Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

LEADING CASE: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act — Parental Rights: Winkelman v. Parma City School District.

LEADING CASE: Patent — Obviousness: KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

LEADING CASE: Private Securities Litigation Reform Act — "Strong Inference" Pleading Standard: Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.

LEADING CASE: Review of Administrative Action — Chevron Deference: Zuni Public School District No. 89 v. Department of Education.

LEADING CASE: Review of Administrative Action — Deference to Agency Interpretation of Conflicting Statutes: National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife.

LEADING CASE: Review of Administrative Action — Limits on Agency Discretion: Massachusetts v. EPA.

LEADING CASE: Sherman Act — Minimum Resale Price Maintenance: Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.

STATISTICS: The Statistics

RECENT PUBLICATIONS: Recent Publications


Harvard Law Review
Gannett House
1511 Massachusetts Ave
Cambridge, MA 02138

Editorial Office:
617-495-7889
617-496-5053 (fax)

Business Office:
617-495-4650
617-495-2748 (fax)