Supreme Court Rules on Race and Schools The justices reject the use of race to assign public school enrollment, block the execution of a mentally ill inmate and free manufacturers and retailers to set price floors.
NPR logo Supreme Court Rules on Race and Schools

Supreme Court Rules on Race and Schools

U.S. Supreme Court Justices. Mark Wilson/Getty Images hide caption

toggle caption
Mark Wilson/Getty Images

The Supreme Court issued a series of far-reaching split decisions Thursday, limiting the use of race to assign public school enrollment, blocking the execution of a mentally ill inmate and freeing manufacturers and retailers to set price floors for products.

The decision in cases affecting schools originated in Louisville, Ky., and Seattle could imperil similar plans in hundreds of districts nationwide, and it leaves public school systems with a limited arsenal to maintain racial diversity.

The 5-4 decision, with Chief Justice John Roberts announcing the court's judgment, saw Justice Stephen Breyer writing a dissent that was joined by the court's other three liberals.

"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race," Roberts said.

Yet Justice Anthony Kennedy would not go as far as the other four conservative justices, saying in a concurring opinion that race may be a component of school plans designed to achieve diversity.

To the extent that Roberts' opinion could be interpreted to foreclose the use of race in any circumstance, Kennedy said, "I disagree with that reasoning."

"A district may consider it a compelling interest to achieve a diverse student population," Kennedy said. "Race may be one component of that diversity."

He agreed with Roberts that the plans in Louisville and Seattle violated constitutional guarantees of equal protection.

Justice Stephen Breyer, in a dissent joined by the other liberals on the court, said Roberts' opinion undermined the promise of integrated schools that the court laid out 53 years ago in its landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education.

"To invalidate the plans under review is to threaten the promise of Brown," Breyer said.

In a separate ruling, the court blocked the execution of a Texas killer whose lawyers argued that he should not be put to death because he is mentally ill. Scott Louis Panetti shot his in-laws to death 15 years ago in front of his wife and young daughter.

Panetti knows what he did, but believes that he is on death row because he preaches the word of God, his lawyers say.

The convicted murderer says that he suffers from a severe documented illness that is the source of gross delusions. "This argument, we hold, should have been considered," said Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion.

Panetti's lawyers wanted the court to determine that people who cannot understand the connection between their crime and punishment because of mental illness may not be executed.

The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which bars "cruel and unusual punishment" also prohibits "the execution of a person who is so lacking in rational understanding that he cannot comprehend that he is being put to death because of the crime he was convicted of committing," they said in court papers.

In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said that Panetti had petitioned the federal courts twice in his case, but that the law allows only one petition.

"The court bends over backwards to allow Panetti" to bring his current claim, despite no evidence that his condition has worsened, or even changed, since 1995, Thomas wrote.

The justices also abandoned a 96-year-old ban on manufacturers and retailers setting price floors for products.

In another 5-4 decision, the court said that agreements on minimum prices are legal if they promote competition.

The ruling means that accusations of minimum pricing pacts will be evaluated case by case.

The court declared in 1911 that minimum pricing agreements violate federal antitrust law.

Supporters said that allowing minimum price floors would hurt upstart discounters and Internet resellers seeking to offer new, cheaper and less expensive ways to distribute products.

The principle that past decisions should be left alone "does not compel our continued adherence" in this instance, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote.

From The Associated Press

Parsing the High Court's Ruling on Race and Schools

The high court issued a ruling Thursday that limits the use of race to assign public school enrollment. Karen Bleier/AFP/Getty Images hide caption

toggle caption
Karen Bleier/AFP/Getty Images

Related NPR Stories

The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down two public school plans that used race as a factor in deciding where students attend classes. The 5-4 ruling on plans from two major public school districts — in Seattle and Louisville, Ky. — is likely to prompt revisions of similar plans in schools across the country.

Here, a look at the ruling and its impact.

Why did the Supreme Court strike down the racial diversity plans?

The court's conservative majority found that plans in Seattle and Louisville that considered race when assigning students to schools went too far to achieve racial diversity. In announcing the 5-4 decision, which split the court along ideological lines, Chief Justice John Roberts said the districts "failed to show that they considered methods other than explicit racial classifications to achieve their stated goals."

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a dissent that was joined by the court's three other liberal justices.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy agreed that the Seattle and Louisville plans went too far. But Kennedy would not go as far as the other court conservatives, who suggested that race may almost never be considered as a factor. Instead, Kennedy said race may be a component of school plans designed to achieve diversity. To the extent that Roberts' opinion could be interpreted as foreclosing the use of race in any circumstance, Kennedy wrote, "I disagree with that reasoning."

What does this decision mean for other public school plans that consider race as a factor?

The decision narrows the arsenal of tools available to public school districts seeking to achieve or maintain racial diversity. However, because of Kennedy's concurring opinion, the decision does leave the door open for race to be used as a factor in limited circumstances.

Recent high court rulings have addressed diversity plans in higher education. Thursday's decision applies specifically to K-12 public education. However, even the majority justices disagreed on whether and how race may be considered as a factor in public school admissions. So, it isn't clear how this ruling will affect programs and circumstances in which a student's race is considered — such as admissions to competitive magnet programs. That uncertainty leaves school districts some room to maneuver.

What is clear is that school districts cannot classify students by race for the purpose of school assignments, as the Seattle and Louisville school plans did. Using race for other educational purposes, such as to track enrollment, is still permissible, based on Kennedy's concurring opinion.

What kind of school diversity plans did Seattle and Louisville have in place?

Both the Seattle and Louisville school districts used school assignment plans to maintain racial diversity, though the plans varied slightly.

The 98,000-student Jefferson County district, which includes the city of Louisville, formerly was under a court-supervised desegregation plan, but in 2001, it was declared to be "unitary," or free of the vestiges of past racial segregation.

After that, Jefferson County voluntarily adopted a "managed choice" plan that allowed race to be considered as a factor for some student assignments to schools. The plan sought to maintain black enrollment at no less than 15 percent and no more than 50 percent at each school.

The 46,000-student Seattle school district was never ordered to desegregate. But in 2000, it adopted a plan that weighed race as one of several "tiebreakers" in deciding admissions to the district's 10 high schools when there are more applicants than spaces.

Why were these school plans challenged?

Both school districts' plans were challenged by parents as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A majority of the Supreme Court agreed that the plans were unconstitutional.

In Jefferson County, the district's race-conscious plan was challenged by a white parent whose son was denied a transfer to his neighborhood school in 2000 because of his race.

The Seattle policy was challenged in 2000 by several white families whose children were denied admission to a new neighborhood high school. The white families were later joined in the suit by black families whose children were denied assignment to traditionally black-majority high schools.

Both plans previously were upheld by federal appeals courts as being narrowly tailored to achieve racial diversity.

How does this ruling compare with other recent Supreme Court cases on diversity and education?

The opinion is the first to touch on the issue of diversity and education since 2003, when a 5-4 ruling upheld the limited consideration of race in college admissions to attain a diverse student body. Since then, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who approved of the limited use of race, has retired. Her replacement, Justice Samuel Alito, was in the majority that struck down the school districts' plans in Louisville and Seattle.

The 2003 cases looked at the undergraduate and law-school admissions policies at the University of Michigan. In those cases, the court upheld affirmative action in college admissions in principle, and it supported the idea that using race as one factor to promote classroom diversity is a permissible goal.

Does the ruling affect the use of affirmative action in colleges and universities?

No. The majority opinion explicitly does not reverse the court's 2003 decision upholding the right of colleges and universities to use race as one of several factors in achieving a diverse student body. In introducing the decision on public schools, Roberts noted that there are "considerations unique to institutions of higher education." Those considerations, Roberts said, make it appropriate to take race into account as part of a "holistic review" of a university applicant's qualifications.

How does this decision affect the legacy of Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark 1954 decision that outlawed segregation in public schools?

Whether the ruling upholds the spirit of Brown depends on whom you ask.

In a separate opinion siding with the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas, the court's only black member, said that school assignment plans based on race are just as unconstitutional as race-based segregation was in 1954. "What was wrong in 1954 cannot be right today," Thomas said.

But the court's dissenters said the decision reneges on the promise of Brown. In a separate dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens called the majority's reliance on Brown to rule against integration "a cruel irony."

Written by Maria Godoy, with additional reporting and analysis by Mark Walsh, Washington editor/Supreme Court correspondent for Education Week. The Associated Press contributed to this report.