gloss · the reading room

Louisiana v. Callais · ¶50

In considering whether the Constitution permits the intentional use of race to comply with the Voting Rights Act, we start with the general rule that the Constitution almost never permits the Federal Government or a State to discriminate on the basis of race. Such discrimination triggers strict scrutiny, and our precedents have identified “only two compelling interests” that can satisfy that standard. SFFA, 600 U. S., at 207. One compelling interest, not relevant here, is “avoiding imminent and serious risks to human safety in prisons, such as a race riot.” Ibid.; see Johnson v. California, 543 U. S. 499, 512–513 (2005). The only other compelling interest we have found is “remediating specific, identified instances of past discrimination that violated the Constitution or a statute.” SFFA, 600 U. S., at 207.
Read in context ›

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.