Case # 1 - Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood of America, Inc.
Docket Nos. 05-380 and 05-1382
Whether, notwithstanding Congress's determination that a health exception was unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is invalid because it lacks a health exception or is otherwise unconstitutional on its face?
Opinions below: 413 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2005) and 435 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2006)
See also 331 F. Supp. 2d 805 (D. Neb. 2004) and 320 F. Supp. 2d 957 (N.D. Cal. 2004)
Certiorari granted 2/21/06 and 6/19/06
Case # 2 - Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education
Docket No. 05-915
1. Should Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), Regents of University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 268 (1978), and Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003), be overturned or were they misapplied by the Respondent, the Jefferson County Board of Education, to use race as the sole factor to assign students to the regular (nontraditional) schools in the Jefferson County Public Schools?
2. Whether the race-conscious Student Assignment Plan with mechanical and inflexible quota systems of not less than 15% nor greater than 50% of African American students without individually or holistic review of any student, meets the Fourteenth Amendment
requirement of the use of race which is a compelling interest narrowly tailored with strict scrutiny?
3. Did the District Court abuse and/or exceed its remedial judicial authority in maintaining desegregative attractiveness in the Public Schools of Jefferson County, Kentucky?
Opinion Below: 416 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 2005)
See also 330 F. Supp. 2d 834 (W.D. Ky. 2004)
Certiorari granted 6/5/06 (to be argued in tandem with 05-908)
Case # 3 - Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1
Docket No. 05-908
(1) How are the Equal Protection rights of public high school students affected by the jurisprudence of Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), and Gratz v.Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003)?
(2) Is racial diversity a compelling interest that can justify the use of race in selecting students for admission to public high schools?
(3) May a school district that is not racially segregated and that normally permits a student to attend any high school of her choosing deny a child admission to her chosen school solely because of her race in an effort to achieve a desired racial balance in particular schools, or does such racial balancing violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinion Below: 426 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2005)
See also 137 F. Supp. 2d 1224 (W.D. Wash. 2001) and 285 F.3d 1236 (9th Cir. 2002)
Certiorari granted 6/5/06 (to be argued in tandem with 05-915)