| Venue: | SCOTUS |
| Facts: | Seattle has a plan where incoming 9th graders can pick what school they want to go to. Race is a tiebreaker, where it would balance the school out. There has never been segregation in Seattle. |
| Posture: | 9th Cir said this was OK. |
| Issue: | Does this offend equal protection? |
| Holding: | Yes. |
| Rule: | Strict scrutiny: this is not narrowly tailored. |
| Reasoning: | There has been no past intentional discrimination. There's an interest in diversity, but just forcing racial balance is unconstitutional. And this isn't part of a broader program to expose people to diverse cultures or ideas. The plan is tied to specific demographics, not any pedagogical goal. The end here does not justify the menas. |
| Dicta: | Thomas, concurring: there are lots of perfectly innocent ways that racial
imbalance can come about-- that's not the same as segregation.
Stevens, dissenting: The majestic equality of the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread. |