Justice Stephen Breyer’s concurrence in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action
E811279
Justice Stephen Breyer’s concurrence in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action is an opinion in which he agreed with the Court’s judgment upholding Michigan’s ban on affirmative action while emphasizing deference to the democratic process rather than endorsing a broad rejection of race-conscious admissions.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Justice Stephen Breyer’s concurrence in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action canonical | 1 |
Statements (42)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
concurring opinion
ⓘ
judicial opinion ⓘ |
| acknowledges |
that race-conscious admissions can be constitutionally permissible under prior Supreme Court precedents
ⓘ
the continuing validity of precedents such as Grutter v. Bollinger permitting limited use of race in admissions ⓘ |
| aimsTo | reconcile deference to voters with protection of constitutional equality principles ⓘ |
| author | Stephen G. Breyer NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| caseCitation | Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 572 U.S. 291 (2014) NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| citationStyle | Breyer, J., concurring NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| clarifies |
that the Equal Protection Clause does not require states to adopt race-conscious admissions policies
ⓘ
that the Equal Protection Clause permits, but does not mandate, certain race-conscious measures ⓘ |
| concernedWith | preserving democratic choice within constitutional limits ⓘ |
| concludes | that the political-process doctrine does not bar Michigan voters from amending their constitution to ban affirmative action in public education ⓘ |
| concursIn | judgment upholding Michigan’s ban on affirmative action in public university admissions ⓘ |
| concursSeparatelyFrom |
concurrence by Chief Justice John Roberts
ⓘ
plurality opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted | Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| date | April 22, 2014 ⓘ |
| disagreesWith |
application of the political-process doctrine to invalidate Michigan Proposal 2
ⓘ
dissenting opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor ⓘ |
| distinguishes |
Schuette from Washington v. Seattle School District No. 1
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Schuette from earlier political-process cases such as Hunter v. Erickson NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| doesNotEndorse | a broad constitutional rejection of race-conscious admissions policies ⓘ |
| emphasizes |
that the case concerns who may decide affirmative action policy, not whether affirmative action is good or bad policy
ⓘ
the right of voters to decide whether public institutions may use race-conscious admissions ⓘ |
| framesIssueAs | whether the Constitution forbids voters from deciding to prohibit race-conscious admissions ⓘ |
| holds | that Michigan voters may constitutionally prohibit race-based preferences in public university admissions through a state constitutional amendment ⓘ |
| interprets | Michigan Proposal 2 as a general prohibition on race-based preferences rather than a restructuring targeting racial minorities NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| joinedJudgmentOf | Supreme Court plurality upholding Michigan Proposal 2 ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| legalTopic |
affirmative action in higher education
ⓘ
equal protection ⓘ political-process doctrine ⓘ |
| length | separate written opinion shorter than the plurality opinion ⓘ |
| notes | that the amendment applies broadly to all racial preferences, not only those benefiting racial minorities ⓘ |
| partOf | Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| positionOnAffirmativeAction | does not express a normative judgment on the desirability of affirmative action as policy ⓘ |
| reasoningFocus | structure of political decision-making rather than substantive evaluation of affirmative action ⓘ |
| relatedTo | Michigan Constitution Article I, Section 26 (Proposal 2) NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| supports |
deference to the democratic process in determining the permissibility of race-conscious admissions policies
ⓘ
the idea that states may experiment with different approaches to race and admissions within constitutional bounds ⓘ |
| 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)
→
separateFrom
→
Justice Stephen Breyer’s concurrence in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action
ⓘ