Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/11-345_l5gm.pdf
Page Number: 20

Cite as:  570 U. S. ____ (2013) 

3 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

tionship to the prevention of espionage and sabotage.”  323 
U. S., at 217–218.  Second, the Court has recognized that
the  government  has  a  compelling  interest  in  remedying 
past  discrimination  for  which  it  is  responsible,  but  we 
have stressed that a government wishing to use race must
provide “a ‘strong basis in evidence for its conclusion that
remedial action [is] necessary.’ ”  Richmond v. J. A. Croson 
Co.,  488  U. S.  469,  500,  504  (1989)  (quoting  Wygant  v. 
Jackson  Bd.  of  Ed.,  476  U. S.  267,  277  (1986)  (plurality 
opinion)).

In contrast to these compelling interests that may, in a 
narrow set  of circumstances, justify racial discrimination,
the  Court  has  frequently  found  other  asserted  interests
insufficient.  For example, in Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U. S. 
429 (1984), the Court flatly rejected a claim that the best 
interests  of  a  child  justified  the  government’s  racial  dis-
crimination.  In  that  case,  a  state  court  awarded  custody 
to a child’s father because the mother was in a mixed-race 
marriage.  The  state  court  believed  the  child  might  be
stigmatized  by  living  in  a  mixed-race  household  and
sought  to  avoid  this  perceived  problem  in  its  custody 
determination.  We acknowledged the possibility of stigma
but  nevertheless  concluded  that  “the  reality  of  private
biases  and  the  possible  injury  they  might  inflict”  do  not
justify racial discrimination.  Id., at 433.  As we explained,
“The  Constitution  cannot  control  such  prejudices  but
neither  can  it  tolerate  them.  Private  biases  may  be  out-
side  the  reach  of  the  law,  but  the  law  cannot,  directly  or 
indirectly, give them effect.”  Ibid. 

Two  years  later,  in  Wygant,  supra,  the  Court  held  that 
even  asserted  interests  in  remedying  societal  discrimina-
tion  and  in  providing  role  models  for  minority  students
could  not  justify  governmentally  imposed  racial  discrimi-
nation.  In  that  case,  a  collective-bargaining  agreement 
between  a  school  board  and  a  teacher’s  union  favored 
teachers who were “ ‘Black, American Indian, Oriental, or