United States v. Fordice

SCOTUSCase
Litigants=United States v. Fordice
ArgueDate=November 13
ArgueYear=1991
DecideDate=June 26
DecideYear=1992
FullName=United States v. Fordice
USVol=505
USPage=717
Citation=
Prior=
Subsequent=
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.
SCOTUS=1991-1993
Majority=White
JoinMajority=Rehnquist, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas
Concurrence=O'Connor
JoinConcurrence=
Concurrence2= Thomas
JoinConcurrence2=
Concurrence/Dissent=Scalia
JoinConcurrence/Dissent=
Dissent=Burger, Blackmun, Powell, and Rhenquist
JoinDissent=
Dissent2=
JoinDissent2=
LawsApplied=

"United States v. Fordice", 505 U.S. 717 (1992)"United States v. Fordice", [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=505&page=717 505 U.S. 717] (1992). Findlaw.com. Retrieved 2008-03-07] 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 institutions 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.

References

ee also

* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 505