Chief Justice John Roberts’s concurrence in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action
E809990
Chief Justice John Roberts’s concurrence in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action is a Supreme Court opinion emphasizing judicial restraint and the legitimacy of voter decisions to prohibit race-based affirmative action policies in public education.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Chief Justice John Roberts’s concurrence in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action canonical | 1 |
Statements (47)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf | Supreme Court concurrence opinion ⓘ |
| acknowledges | precedent allowing some consideration of race in higher education admissions under strict scrutiny ⓘ |
| addresses | interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause in the context of direct democracy ⓘ |
| argues | courts should not disempower voters from deciding whether to allow race-based preferences ⓘ |
| asserts |
the Constitution does not guarantee minority groups a particular political process outcome
ⓘ
the political-process doctrine should be applied narrowly ⓘ |
| author | John G. Roberts Jr. NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| caseCitation | Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 572 U.S. 291 (2014) NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| characterizes |
race-based affirmative action as a policy question for voters and legislatures
ⓘ
the dissent as reintroducing racial considerations into every political decision ⓘ |
| cites |
Gratz v. Bollinger
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Grutter v. Bollinger NERFINISHED ⓘ Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| clarifies |
Schuette decides who may resolve the debate over affirmative action
ⓘ
Schuette does not decide the constitutionality of affirmative action itself ⓘ his prior statement in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 ⓘ |
| concerns | Michigan Proposal 2 (2006) NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| concursIn | upholding Michigan’s Proposal 2 ⓘ |
| contextOf | public higher education admissions ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| criticizes | framing of the case as about whether the Constitution forbids the majority from doing what it may choose to do ⓘ |
| dateDecided | 2014-04-22 ⓘ |
| distinguishesFrom |
Hunter v. Erickson
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Washington v. Seattle School District No. 1 NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| emphasizes |
deference to democratic processes
ⓘ
judicial restraint ⓘ |
| focusesOn | limits of judicial power in reviewing voter initiatives ⓘ |
| frames | the case as about the role of the judiciary versus the role of voters ⓘ |
| holds | Michigan voters may choose to prohibit race-based preferences in public university admissions ⓘ |
| joinsJudgmentOf | plurality opinion of Justice Anthony Kennedy ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| language | English ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
constitutionality of state bans on race-based affirmative action in public education ⓘ |
| opposes | dissenting opinion of Justice Sonia Sotomayor NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| partOf | Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| publishedIn | United States Reports NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| rejects | use of the political-process doctrine to invalidate Michigan’s constitutional amendment ⓘ |
| respondsTo | Justice Sotomayor’s discussion of race and democracy ⓘ |
| states | the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race is not a universal command of the Constitution in all contexts ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
affirmative action in public university admissions
ⓘ
direct democracy and constitutional law ⓘ equal protection and race-conscious policies ⓘ |
| supports |
legitimacy of voter-enacted prohibitions on race-based affirmative action
ⓘ
state autonomy in structuring public university admissions policies ⓘ |
| votesWith | majority ⓘ |
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (dissent on affirmative action)
→
criticizes
→
Chief Justice John Roberts’s concurrence in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action
ⓘ