 | This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "United States v. Fordice" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(February 2007) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| United States v. Fordice | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued November 13, 1991 Decided June 26, 1992 | |
| Full case name | United States v. Fordice |
| Citations | 505U.S.717 (more) 112 S. Ct. 2727, 120L. Ed. 2d 575, 1992U.S. LEXIS 4534 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Ayers v. Allain, 674F. Supp.1523 (N.D. Miss. 1987); reversed, 893F.2d732 (5th Cir. 1990); rehearingen banc granted, 898 F.2d1014 (5th Cir.1990); District Court ruling upheld on rehearingen banc, 914 F.2d676 (5th Cir. 1990);cert. granted,499 U.S. 958 (1991). |
| Holding | |
| The eight public universities inMississippi had not sufficiently integrated and that the state must take action to change this under theEqual Protection Clause. The system was not declared unconstitutional; simply the court ruled that more action needed to be taken to ensure integration. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | White, joined by Rehnquist, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas |
| Concurrence | O'Connor |
| Concurrence | Thomas |
| Concur/dissent | Scalia |
United States v. Fordice, 505 U.S. 717 (1992), is aUnited StatesSupreme Court case that resulted in an eight to one ruling that the eight public universities inMississippi had not sufficiently integrated and that the state must takeaffirmative action to change this under theEqual Protection Clause. The Court found that, although the state had eliminated explicit prohibitions on the admission of black students to institutions including theUniversity of Mississippi,Mississippi State University, and theUniversity of Southern Mississippi, the Court of Appeals had not properly reviewed the set of discriminatory policies used by the state to suppress black enrollment at these schools. On this point, the Court stated that "[i]f the State perpetuates policies and practices traceable to its prior system that continue to have segregative effects – whether by influencing student enrollment decisions or by fostering segregation in other facets of the university system – and such policies are without sound educational justification and can be practicably eliminated, the State has not satisfied its burden of proving that it has dismantled its prior system."[1]
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.
 | This article related to a case of theSupreme Court of the United States of theRehnquist Court is astub. You can help Wikipedia byexpanding it. |