Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (dissent on affirmative action)

E232007

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.

All labels observed (3)

How this entity was disambiguated

Statements (44)

Predicate Object
instanceOf Supreme Court judicial opinion dissent ⓘ
argues Michigan’s ban on race-conscious admissions restructures the political process to the detriment of racial minorities ⓘ
the Equal Protection Clause protects minority groups from being disadvantaged in the political process ⓘ
the amendment imposes a unique political burden on racial minorities seeking race-conscious policies ⓘ
audience legal scholars, civil rights advocates, and the general public concerned with race and equality ⓘ
authoredBy Sonia Sotomayor ⓘ
caseCitation Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 572 U.S. 291 (2014) ⓘ
characterizedAs major statement on race and democracy by Justice Sonia Sotomayor ⓘ
powerful defense of affirmative action ⓘ
cites empirical evidence and history of racial discrimination in education ⓘ
constitutionalProvisionInterpreted Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ
court Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
criticizes Chief Justice John Roberts’s concurrence in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action ⓘ
plurality opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action ⓘ
date 2014-04-22 ⓘ
decisionOutcomeContext dissent from a 6–2 decision upholding Michigan’s Proposal 2 ⓘ
emphasizes the continuing relevance of race in American life and education ⓘ
the importance of diversity in higher education ⓘ
focusesOn political-process doctrine under the Equal Protection Clause ⓘ
framesAs a case about who holds power in the political process, not just about affirmative action policy merits ⓘ
historicalContext post-Grutter and post-Gratz affirmative action jurisprudence ⓘ
influencedDebateOn future of affirmative action in the United States ⓘ
how courts should treat voter-approved bans on race-conscious policies ⓘ
joinedBy Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ
jurisdiction State of Michigan ⓘ
linked to: Michigan
jurisprudentialTheme protection of minority political participation ⓘ
role of courts in safeguarding equal political access ⓘ
languageStyle direct and personal discussion of race and discrimination ⓘ
legalIssue Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ
affirmative action in higher education ⓘ
race-conscious admissions policies ⓘ
notes other groups can lobby universities directly for admissions preferences while racial minorities must amend the state constitution ⓘ
opposes Michigan Proposal 2 (2006) ⓘ
Michigan constitutional amendment banning race-based preferences in public education ⓘ
partOf Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action ⓘ
position would affirm the Sixth Circuit’s decision striking down Michigan’s Proposal 2 ⓘ
publicationMedium United States Reports ⓘ
relatedToCase Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003) ⓘ
linked to: Gratz v. Bollinger

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) ⓘ
reliesOnPrecedent Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969) ⓘ
Washington v. Seattle School District No. 1, 458 U.S. 457 (1982) ⓘ
separateFrom Justice Stephen Breyer’s concurrence in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action ⓘ
viewedAs a foundational text in understanding Justice Sotomayor’s views on race and equality ⓘ
warns that removing race-conscious tools can entrench racial inequality ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (10)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Sonia Sotomayor → notableCaseInvolvement → Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (dissent on affirmative action) ⓘ
Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (dissent on affirmative action) → partOf → Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action ⓘ
linked to: Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (dissent on affirmative action)
Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (dissent on affirmative action) → caseCitation → Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 572 U.S. 291 (2014) ⓘ
linked to: Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (dissent on affirmative action)
October Term 2013 → hasPart → Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action ⓘ
linked to: Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (dissent on affirmative action)
Michigan constitutional amendment banning race-based preferences in public education → subjectOf → Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action ⓘ
linked to: Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (dissent on affirmative action)
Michigan Proposal 2 (2006) → relatedCase → Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action ⓘ
linked to: Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (dissent on affirmative action)
Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969) → relatedCase → Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 572 U.S. 291 (2014) ⓘ
linked to: Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (dissent on affirmative action)
Washington v. Seattle School District No. 1, 458 U.S. 457 (1982) → relatedTo → Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 572 U.S. 291 (2014) ⓘ
linked to: Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (dissent on affirmative action)
Chief Justice John Roberts’s concurrence in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action → partOf → Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action ⓘ
linked to: Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (dissent on affirmative action)
Justice Stephen Breyer’s concurrence in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action → partOf → Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action ⓘ
linked to: Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (dissent on affirmative action)