United States v. Fordice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article does not cite any references or sources. (February 2007)
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

This article is orphaned as few or no other articles link to it.
Please help introduce links in articles on related topics. (February 2007)

United States v. Fordice

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued November 13, 1991
Decided June 26, 1992

Full case name:	United States v. Fordice

Citations:	505 U.S. 717

Holding

The eight public universities in Mississippi had not sufficiently integrated and that the state must take affirmative action to change this under the Equal Protection Clause. The system was not declared unconstitutional; simply the court ruled that more action needed to be taken to ensure integration.

Court membership

Chief Justice: William Rehnquist
Associate Justices: Byron White, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas

Case opinions

Majority by: White
Joined by: Rehnquist, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas
Concurrence by: O'Connor
Concurrence by: Thomas
Concurrence/dissent by: Scalia
Dissent by: Burger, Blackmun, Powell, and Rhenquist

United States v. Fordice, 505 U.S. 717 (1992)^[1] is a United States Supreme Court case that resulted in an eight to one ruling that the eight public universities in Mississippi had not sufficiently integrated and that the state must take affirmative action to change this under the Equal Protection Clause. The Court found that, although the state had eliminated explicit prohibitions on the admission of black students to institions including the University of Mississippi, Mississippi State University, and the University of Southern Mississippi, the Court of Appeals had not properly review the set of discriminatory policies used by the state to suppress black enrollment at these schools.

Four opinions were filed in the case. In addition to Justice White's majority opinion, Justice O'Connor and Justice Thomas filed concurring opinions. Thomas, in particular, expressed a concern that the strict review of policies that divided students by race should not be used against historically black universities in the state.

Justice Scalia filed a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, expressing his disagreement with the burden that the Court imposed on universities and his concern that the standards set forth by the Court would create confusion and lead to more litigation.