Louisiana v. Callais · ¶51
To “rise to the level of a compelling state interest,” an effort to remediate past discrimination “must satisfy two conditions.” Shaw II, 517 U. S., at 909. “First, the discrimination must be `identified discrimination.' ” Ibid. (quoting Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U. S. 469, 499, 500, 505, 507, 509 (1989)). In other words, the State or Federal Government must identify the specific instances of past discrimination that it aims to remediate and, in light of that specification, must “ `determine the precise scope of the injury it seeks to remedy.' ” 517 U. S., at 909 (quoting Croson, 488 U. S., at 498 (opinion for the Court)). The States and Federal Government have no compelling interest in generally remediating “past discrimination in a particular industry or region” or “the effects of societal discrimination.” 517 U. S., at 909–910. Second, after identifying the specific instance…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.