Parents v. Seattle: Supreme Court Race in Schools Ruling

Introduction: The Supreme Court and Judicial Review

The Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court in the country, is one of three major branches of the U.S. federal government — the others being the executive branch (the president) and the legislative branch (Congress). The U.S. Constitution grants the Court the power of judicial review — that is, the power to strike down unconstitutional acts of government — making the Supreme Court an essential part of the system of checks and balances, which is intended as a safeguard against the abuse of governmental power (Lieberman, p. 1).

The president has the power to nominate justices to the Court, who are then appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. Presidents have therefore always tended to nominate judges who share their ideological views. Currently, there are nine justices on the Supreme Court, seven of whom were appointed by Republican presidents. It is worth noting that this preference does not always produce the intended result: Justice Earl Warren, for example, was nominated by President Eisenhower — a conservative — yet became one of the most liberal judges in U.S. history.

The post-World War II history of the U.S. Supreme Court shows that a majority of the justices held a "liberal" bias. The "Warren Court" (1953–1969) in particular was responsible for a number of landmark liberal decisions that expanded civil rights, civil liberties, and judicial powers. With the recent appointment of two conservative justices by President George W. Bush — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito — the tide has arguably turned in favor of conservatism on the Court. This shift is reflected in several recent Supreme Court decisions involving abortion, discrimination, and the rights of defendants, the latest being its ruling in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007), which is the subject of this paper.

In the prevailing popular perception, Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are the Court's "conservative" bloc, while Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer are categorized as "liberal." Justice Kennedy is generally considered a "moderate conservative."

Facts of the Case

The Seattle School District had adopted a system of tiebreakers to decide admissions in oversubscribed schools. One important tiebreaker was a racial factor intended to maintain racial diversity. The system sometimes prevented students from gaining admission to schools of their first choice on the basis of race, when the racial demographics of a school deviated substantially from the overall white-to-nonwhite ratio of Seattle's total student population.

Parents of students who were denied admission to schools of their choice due to their race sued the district, arguing that its racial tiebreaker policy violated the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection. The District Court, relying on the Supreme Court's standards for racial classification in higher education, dismissed the suit. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that dismissal (Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, FindLaw).

Questions Before the Supreme Court and the Decision

The Court considered two central questions:

First, whether the decisions in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) — in which the Court held that race-based classifications must be directed toward a "compelling government interest" and be "narrowly tailored" to that interest — also applied to public primary and secondary schools.

Second, whether the Seattle District's denial of admission to students to the high school of their choice on the basis of race constituted a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

By a 5-4 majority, the Court held that the district's racial tiebreaker plan was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause and that the Court's prior decisions in Grutter and Gratz did not apply in this case.

Conservative and Liberal Perspectives on the Ruling

The plural decision in this case reflects, in many ways, the conservative-liberal divide on the Court. The majority opinion was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, who is widely regarded as a conservative jurist. The three other justices who unreservedly joined the plurality decision — Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito — are likewise considered decidedly conservative. On the other hand, the four justices who dissented — Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer — are firmly categorized as liberal. Justice Kennedy, regarded as a moderate conservative, concurred with the majority's conclusion that the Seattle school district violated constitutional guarantees of equal protection, but wrote a separate opinion to leave open the possibility of using race to achieve diversity in schools under certain circumstances.

The reasoning offered by both the majority and dissenting justices reflects the broader ways in which conservatives and liberals interpret the question of race and affirmative action in the United States. Conservatives generally oppose affirmative action by condemning it as another form of racial discrimination and viewing it as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. They argue that the U.S. Constitution is color-blind and, while conceding that racial diversity is a worthy goal, insist it must be achieved through race-neutral means. They also argue for a level playing field for all American citizens regardless of race. These arguments are evident in the concurring opinion of Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race," as well as in the separate concurring opinion of Justice Thomas — notably the only Black member of the Court — who is well-known for his strongly conservative views.

The liberal justices, by contrast, point to the long history of slavery in the United States, systematic racial discrimination against Black Americans, and the Jim Crow laws as evidence that affirmative action policies must continue in order to counter the enduring social and economic disadvantages faced by the Black community. They argue that the conservative insistence on "equal opportunity" and a "level playing field" can itself be a manifestation of deep-rooted structural racism. The dissenting opinions in this case are largely grounded in this underlying liberal philosophy.

Justice Kennedy, in his separate concurrence, observed: "A district may consider it a compelling interest to achieve a diverse student population. Race may be one component of that diversity, but other demographic factors, plus special talents and needs, should also be considered." This position reflects his effort to moderate the majority's holding without joining the liberal dissenters outright.

Conclusion

The majority decision in Parents Involved is an accurate reflection of the recent swing in the U.S. Supreme Court toward conservatism. Nevertheless, it falls short of the full expectations of the right wing, partly due to the swing vote of Justice Kennedy. Despite endorsing the majority's conclusion, Kennedy wrote a separate opinion that softens the ruling's effect by leaving the door partially open for public schools to consider race as one factor among many in pursuing equal educational opportunity under certain limited circumstances.

References

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 et al. No. 05-908. FindLaw for Professionals. 2007.

Lieberman, Jethro K. "Supreme Court of the United States." Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia. 2007.