John Roberts summarized the courts decision in three points. First, he described the 2 schools’ backgrounds. Secondly, he trashed respondents’ claims that Parents Involved lacked legal basis. Seattle had advanced two claims: that existing Parents Involved members could not claim a forthcoming injury; and Seattle had stopped utilizing ethnic tie-breaker awaiting the ruling of this legal suit.
Roberts ruled that the possibility that Parents Involved children may fail to be denied school admission due to their race, owing to their choosing oversubscribed or undersubscribed schools whereby they are bound to benefit owing to their ethnicity, fails to remove the alleged injury. Roberts argued that the Seattle district aggressively protects its ethnicity-based plan , and no guarantees exists that if the district wins this suit it will not revert to utilizing ethnicity in student assignments.
Thirdly, Roberts stated that strict scrutiny applies when the national administration distributes racial-based benefits or burdens. He explained that this was so because ethnic categorizations are too harmful to allow for only the most precise relationship between classification and justification. A narrowly-tailored arrangement has to be devised so as to satisfy strict scrutiny requirements and attain a convincing government concern.
Roberts pointed out that previous Supreme Court law suits had acknowledged 2 convincing reasons to allow using race: correcting the implications of deliberate discrimination; and to attain diversity within advanced education with reference to Grutter v. Bollinger. Regarding rectifying past discrimination, He noted that schools in Seattle had by no means been legally segregated; whereas Kentucky schools’, although formerly legally segregated, desecration decree had been suspended in 2000 after it was found out that such schools had attained unitary statuses.
None of the two schools could allege such convincing interest (Shaw, 2008). Regarding initiating diversity within higher education, Roberts differentiated this suit from Grutter by positing that such a suit more resembled Gratz v. Bollinger. Regarding Grutter, the concern was student community diversity in advanced education; it was not solely focused on ethnicity, but incorporated every factor contrbuting to learner diversity. Roberts trashed the idea that ethnic balancing may be a convincing state concern, because such would rationalize the obligation of ethnic balance in America.
Such an argument is counter to the following arguments: the Constitution’s identical protection guarantee implies that the administration ought to regard nationals as individual persons and not merely as parts of some religious, national, sexual or racial class. Permitting ethnic equilibrium as a convincing outcome per se would successfully guarantee that ethnicity will forever remain pertinent in America, plus that the eventual objective of entirely removing such irrelevant issues, like ethnicity, from legislative decision-making will in no way be achieved.
Interests not connected to relative representation of different ethnicities would indefinitely endorse utilization of ethnic categorizations, used initially to get the suitable combination of ethnic viewpoints and subsequently to make sure that the plan carries on reflecting such combination. Roberts goes on to address the claim advanced by the school district that its utilization of individual ethnic categorization is essential to attain their objectives. He responded that such categorizations were unnecessary, because they minimally influenced learner assignments.
Roberts compared such a situation with Grutter whereby race consideration was regarded as being indispensable because of making law school minority representation more than triple from four to 14. 5 percent. The concerned school districts have as well not demonstrated that they thought of other methods apart from explicit ethnic categorizations to attain their desired goals. Stern, good faith contemplation of practical ethnic-neutral alternatives is required for constricted tailoring.
Within Seattle, a number of alternative arrangements, majority of which would have avoided using express ethnic categorizations, were discarded with minimal or no contemplation. Jefferson County failed to forwards proof that that alternative strategies were contemplated on; although the district alleged that its objectives were primarily achieved through methods different from ethnic classifications (http://onthedocket. org/cases/2006/parents-involved-community-schools-v-seattle-school-district-1-et-al-06282007).