Parents v. Seattle: Supreme Court Race in Schools Ruling
This paper examines the U.S. Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, in which a 5-4 majority struck down the district's race-based tiebreaker admissions policy as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The paper outlines the facts of the case, the questions before the Court, and the majority and dissenting opinions. It also analyzes how the ruling reflects the broader conservative-liberal ideological divide on the Court regarding affirmative action, racial diversity, and the legacy of Brown v. Board of Education.
- Introduction: The Supreme Court and Judicial Review: Court's role, structure, and ideological shift
- Facts of the Case: Seattle's racial tiebreaker admissions policy challenged
- Questions Before the Supreme Court and the Decision: Legal questions and the 5-4 ruling
- Conservative and Liberal Perspectives on the Ruling: Ideological divide in majority and dissenting opinions
- The Role of Brown v. Board of Education: Opposing interpretations of Brown by both sides
- Conclusion: Ruling reflects Court's conservative shift with caveats
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its case analysis in a broader institutional context — explaining the Supreme Court's role and recent ideological shift — before diving into the specific ruling, giving readers essential background.
- It uses the justices' own quoted language to illustrate the conservative-liberal divide, making the ideological contrast concrete rather than abstract.
- The discussion of Justice Kennedy's separate concurrence adds nuance, showing the author understands that the decision was not a simple binary outcome.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates comparative legal analysis: it reads majority and dissenting opinions side by side, identifying how justices on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum rely on the same precedent — Brown v. Board of Education — to reach opposite conclusions. This technique of "competing interpretations of shared precedent" is a strong model for law and political science writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with institutional context (the Court's role and recent conservative shift), then presents the case facts and legal questions, followed by the Court's holding. The analytical core compares conservative and liberal reasoning. A brief conclusion ties the ruling back to the paper's opening claim about the Court's ideological direction. The structure moves clearly from background → facts → decision → analysis → conclusion.
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."
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.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.