Opinion ID: 2546657
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: United States v. Fordice

Text: In Fordice, the United States Supreme Court considered whether Mississippi had satisfied its obligation under Brown v. Board of Education [35] to dismantle de jure segregation in its public university system. [36] Mississippi acknowledged that its laws formerly mandated a segregated, dual educational system, but argued that it had reached full compliance with the law and had eliminated its prior de jure system. [37] The Court determined that merely dismantling a de jure segregated admissions policy was insufficient to eliminate a prior de jure segregated dual educational system. [38] The Court explained: [A] State does not discharge its constitutional obligations until it eradicates policies and practices traceable to its prior de jure system that continue to foster segregation. Thus we have consistently asked whether existing racial identifiability is attributable to the State ... and examined a wide range of factors to determine whether the State has perpetuated its formerly de jure segregation in any facet of its institutional system. [39] Fordice does not require a showing of present intent to discriminate if a claimant can show that the current system is traceable to a prior de jure system. [40] Given the difficulty of proving discriminatory intent, [41] this benefit may be important in a given case. As the Court noted, if challenged policies are not rooted in the prior dual system, the question becomes whether the fact of racial separation establishes a new violation of the Fourteenth Amendment under traditional principles. [42]