Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (dissent on affirmative action)

E232007

Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (dissent on affirmative action) is Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s powerful Supreme Court dissent criticizing a Michigan constitutional amendment that banned race-conscious admissions policies in public universities.

All labels observed (3)

How this entity was disambiguated

Statements (44)

Predicate Object
instanceOf Supreme Court judicial opinion dissent
argues Michigan’s ban on race-conscious admissions restructures the political process to the detriment of racial minorities
Equal Protection Clause
surface form: the Equal Protection Clause protects minority groups from being disadvantaged in the political process

the amendment imposes a unique political burden on racial minorities seeking race-conscious policies
audience legal scholars, civil rights advocates, and the general public concerned with race and equality
authoredBy Sonia Sotomayor
caseCitation Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (dissent on affirmative action) self-linksurface differs
surface form: Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 572 U.S. 291 (2014)
characterizedAs major statement on race and democracy by Justice Sonia Sotomayor
powerful defense of affirmative action
cites empirical evidence and history of racial discrimination in education
constitutionalProvisionInterpreted Fourteenth Amendment
surface form: Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
court Supreme Court of the United States
criticizes Chief Justice John Roberts’s concurrence in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action
plurality opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action
date 2014-04-22
decisionOutcomeContext dissent from a 6–2 decision upholding Michigan’s Proposal 2
emphasizes the continuing relevance of race in American life and education
the importance of diversity in higher education
focusesOn political-process doctrine under the Equal Protection Clause
framesAs a case about who holds power in the political process, not just about affirmative action policy merits
historicalContext post-Grutter and post-Gratz affirmative action jurisprudence
influencedDebateOn future of affirmative action in the United States
how courts should treat voter-approved bans on race-conscious policies
joinedBy Ruth Bader Ginsburg
jurisdiction Michigan
surface form: State of Michigan
jurisprudentialTheme protection of minority political participation
role of courts in safeguarding equal political access
languageStyle direct and personal discussion of race and discrimination
legalIssue Equal Protection Clause
surface form: Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

affirmative action in higher education
race-conscious admissions policies
notes other groups can lobby universities directly for admissions preferences while racial minorities must amend the state constitution
opposes Michigan Proposal 2 (2006)
Michigan constitutional amendment banning race-based preferences in public education
partOf Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (dissent on affirmative action) self-linksurface differs
surface form: Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action
position would affirm the Sixth Circuit’s decision striking down Michigan’s Proposal 2
publicationMedium United States Reports
relatedToCase Gratz v. Bollinger
surface form: Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003)

Grutter v. Bollinger
surface form: Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003)
reliesOnPrecedent Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969)
Washington v. Seattle School District No. 1, 458 U.S. 457 (1982)
separateFrom Justice Stephen Breyer’s concurrence in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action
viewedAs a foundational text in understanding Justice Sotomayor’s views on race and equality
warns that removing race-conscious tools can entrench racial inequality

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (4)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Sonia Sotomayor notableCaseInvolvement Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (dissent on affirmative action)
Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (dissent on affirmative action) partOf Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (dissent on affirmative action) self-linksurface differs
this entity surface form: Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action
Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (dissent on affirmative action) caseCitation Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (dissent on affirmative action) self-linksurface differs
this entity surface form: Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 572 U.S. 291 (2014)
October Term 2013 hasPart Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (dissent on affirmative action)
this entity surface form: Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action