Triple

Given a phrase, classify it is english named entity (e.g., persons, organizations, works of art) in Latin script, or not (e.g., literals, dates, URLs, verbose phrases). For disambiguation, the statement where the phrase occurs as object is also given. Please return a JSON object with `phrase` (string, the phrase being analyzed) and `is_ne` (boolean, indicating whether the phrase is a Named Entity).

Phrase: Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 572 U.S. 291 (2014) | Statement: [Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (dissent on affirmative action), caseCitation, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 572 U.S. 291 (2014)]

Target entity: Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 572 U.S. 291 (2014)
Context triple: [Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (dissent on affirmative action), caseCitation, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 572 U.S. 291 (2014)]

• A. Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (dissent on affirmative action) chosen
  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.
• B. Grutter v. Bollinger
  Grutter v. Bollinger is a landmark 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the limited use of race as one factor in holistic law school admissions to promote educational diversity.
• C. Gratz v. Bollinger
  Gratz v. Bollinger is a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down the University of Michigan’s undergraduate affirmative action admissions policy as violating the Equal Protection Clause by awarding automatic points based on race.
• D. Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College
  Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College is a landmark 2023 U.S. Supreme Court case that sharply limited the use of race-conscious admissions policies in higher education, effectively ending affirmative action programs at colleges and universities nationwide.
• E. Chief Justice John Roberts’s concurrence in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action
  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.
• F. None of above.
• G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.