{"id":2681,"date":"2023-04-30T21:20:04","date_gmt":"2023-05-01T01:20:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/?p=2681"},"modified":"2023-05-01T09:42:47","modified_gmt":"2023-05-01T13:42:47","slug":"a-transient-majority-responding-to-chief-justice-rehnquists-random-thought-on-the-segregation-cases-in-light-of-sffa-v-u-north-carolina","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/a-transient-majority-responding-to-chief-justice-rehnquists-random-thought-on-the-segregation-cases-in-light-of-sffa-v-u-north-carolina\/","title":{"rendered":"A \u201cTransient Majority?\u201d Responding to Chief Justice Rehnquist\u2019s \u201cRandom Thought on the Segregation Cases\u201d in Light of SFFA v. U. North Carolina"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Juliana Peluso, JD Anticipated May 2024, Law & Public Policy Scholar<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 In 1952, former Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist\u2014then a law clerk to Justice Robert H. Jackson\u2014prepared a memorandum titled \u201cA Random Thought on the Segregation Cases<\/a>\u201d in anticipation of the Court\u2019s deliberation on school segregation in Brown v. Board of Education<\/em><\/a>. In it, then-clerk Rehnquist rejected the federal judiciary\u2019s involvement in \u201cemotionally charged subject matter,\u201d particularly with regard to issues entailing \u201crelations between the individual and the state.\u201d  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Segregation, Rehnquist suggested, \u201cquite clearly is not one of those extreme cases which commands intervention from one of any conviction.\u201d This stance led the future Chief Justice to the self-assessed \u201cunpopular and unhumanitarian position\u201d that \u201cPlessy v. Ferguson<\/a> was right and should be reaffirmed.\u201d  The memo was ultimately for naught (save two “rocky” Supreme Court confirmation hearings<\/a> several decades later)\u2014a unanimous Court in Brown <\/em>instead rejected Plessy<\/em>, finding school segregation to be in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th<\/sup> Amendment, and put an end to \u201cseparate but equal\u201d public school education \u201cwith all deliberate speed.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Chief Justice\u2019s assertion that the Supreme Court is not vested with the power to address \u201cemotionally charged\u201d disputes relating to individual rights would not have been a viable path forward at the critical juncture in U.S. history represented by Brown<\/em>. The Court\u2019s choice to remove states\u2019 individual autonomy to determine whether and how to end school segregation was proven to be wholly necessary to the pursuit of racial equity by the massive, violent resistance that followed its decision. The Court\u2019s 1938 opinion in U.S. v. Carolene Products Co.<\/em><\/a> created a blueprint for when it may embrace an \u201cactivist\u201d role as a counter-majoritarian force protective of the rights of discrete and insular minorities, as it did in Brown<\/em>. However, the Supreme Court will soon address and likely end or limit race-conscious college admission policies in Students For Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina<\/em><\/a>.<\/em> Such a holding would lend credence to the former Chief Justice\u2019s ideas about the transient nature of decisions relating to individual rights\u2014although this should not translate to a hands-off approach by the Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If Not Brown<\/em>, Then Just a Matter of Time: The Inevitability of Limited State Autonomy<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In his memorandum, Rehnquist nodded approvingly at the Court\u2019s \u201crole as arbiter\u201d in \u201cquestions of inter-state or state-federal relations . . . [that] determine the skeletal relations of the governments to each other.\u201d This role he explicitly contrasted with \u201crelations between the individual and the state\u201d\u2014namely, civil rights, which he believed to be outside of the Supreme Court\u2019s purview. Yet segregation was <\/em>one such question of state-federal relations. The echoes of chattel slavery in the South, unrepentantly manifested in a campaign of terror launched against Black Americans<\/a> along with overt disenfranchisement and de jure apartheid<\/a>, would present a conflict between those states and the Federal government that was precisely the Supreme Court\u2019s role to resolve no matter how it arose, even per Chief Justice Rehnquist\u2019s own rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was inevitable that segregation would one day be addressed, and that when it was, southern states would push back violently against measures to end it. Southern states immediately responded to Brown<\/em> with the Southern Manifesto<\/a>, which declared the Court\u2019s decision to be a violation of states\u2019 fundamental right to autonomy within their borders and urged southerners to \u201cexhaust all \u2018lawful means\u2019 to resist the \u2018chaos and confusion,\u2019 of desegregation.\u201d The massive resistance to desegregation from southern states that followed Brown<\/em> included \u201cThe Stand in the Schoolhouse Door<\/a>\u201d at the University of Alabama, the \u201cLittle Rock Nine<\/a>\u201d in 1957, and the \u2018Ole Miss Riot of 1962<\/a>, along with related political assassinations and acts of terrorism grounded in racial animus. In Little Rock and at \u2018Ole Miss, the Governor of each state enlisted the National Guard or state troopers to prevent Black students from registering or attending otherwise all-white schools, forcing federal intervention and leading to significant death and injury.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An optimist might hope that Chief Justice Rehnquist only rejected engagement by the Supreme Court in favor of legislatively enacted measures to end \u201cseparate but equal.\u201d Ending segregation with all the legitimacy and force of a democratically elected body, rather than the more tenuous finding of an unelected judiciary, may have seemed to offer a more enduring solution. But this reasoning makes no appearance in his memorandum and seems not to comport with the contents of the document overall, which address segregation somewhat glibly. Meanwhile, the Southern Manifesto\u2014signed by 19 Senators\u2014and southern states\u2019 violent resistance to school desegregation after Brown <\/em>suggest that even if such a measure could pass Congress, the result would have been the same: staunch southern state refusal to accept a federal mandate to enact racial equality, no matter the origin. If not Brown<\/em>, it was simply a matter of time before an occasion arose that would test the limits of southern state autonomy in relation to the guarantees of the Constitution, causing a constitutional crisis. And when it did, the Supreme Court\u2014as \u201carbiter. . . in questions of [] state-federal relations\u201d\u2014would be charged with its resolution one way or the other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rehnquist\u2019s memorandum arguably failed to comprehend the gravity of segregation\u2014not just morally, but insofar as it did not consider that the fight for equal rights would inevitably require the Supreme Court to arbitrate between the Federal government and noncompliant southern states. His proposal that the Supreme Court remain neutral and states\u2019 rights be respected with fundamental individual rights at stake, was not just \u201cunhumanitarian,\u201d but untenable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court’s Institutional Role in Light of Carolene Products<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

While Chief Justice Rehnquist\u2019s memorandum strongly encouraged a severely limited, backseat role for the Supreme Court in relation to individual rights or other \u201cemotionally charged subject matter,\u201d the Brown <\/em>Court instead elected to accept its position as arbiter. Its decision to do so was appropriate and justified by the recent precedent of Carolene Products<\/em>. The notion of a reserved judiciary as pushed by Rehnquist remains just that: one possible interpretation of the structure of our government, not a mandate.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In footnote four of Carolene Products<\/em><\/a>, a case decided before Brown<\/em>, the Supreme Court effectively announced its intention and ability to take an activist role whenever a given case involves deprivation of a fundamental right or tyranny of a majority over a \u201cdiscrete and insular minority,\u201d described in part as \u201c particular religious . . . or national . . . or racial minorities.\u201d In so doing, it emphasized the Court\u2019s unique counter-majoritarian position, stating that where prejudice against these groups \u201ctends seriously to curtail the operation of those political processes ordinarily to be relied upon to protect [them],\u201d the issue \u201cmay call for a correspondingly more searching judicial inquiry.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Carolene Products <\/em>is not cited in Brown<\/em>, but the case and its rationale nonetheless support the Brown<\/em> Court\u2019s decision to act affirmatively to address and ultimately attempt to end segregation. Segregation targeted Black Americans, a \u201cdiscrete and insular minority,\u201d who were systematically deprived of \u201cthe operation of [] political processes\u201d to assert their right to equal standing in society, including the ability to benefit from the same level of public-school education as white students. Brown<\/em> focused on how segregation harms Black students psychologically by imprinting the damaging message that they are inferior to white students in order to justify finding that Plessy<\/em> violated the Equal Protection Clause; it did not discuss deeper causes but made clear that it saw civil rights issues to be precisely within its wheelhouse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chief Justice Rehnquist\u2019s memorandum expresses a viable separation of powers, and role of the Court, in the sense that a Supreme Court is not precluded from requiring itself to ignore controversial issues relating to individual rights. But so, too, is the Carolene Products <\/em>model justifiable\u2014it is not negated by either the Constitution or case law. The Court\u2019s decision to expand its own purview and intertwine itself into the civil rights revolution of the mid-20th<\/sup> century likely accelerated the end of segregation to a dramatic extent, altering the course of history for the better.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A \u201cTransient Majority\u201d? The (Possible) End of Race-Conscious Admissions in SFFA v. N. Carolina University<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The end of Chief Justice Rehnquist\u2019s memorandum veers abruptly into the existential: \u201cOne hundred and fifty years of attempts on the part of this Court to protect minority rights of any kind,\u201d he writes<\/a>, \u201chave been sloughed off, and crept silently to rest. If the present Court is unable to profit by this example it must be prepared to see its work fade in time, too, as embodying only the sentiments of a transient majority of nine men.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chief Justice Rehnquist would come to find at least one notable exception to his own assertion that the Court can\u2019t expect activism to stick, later stating that the Brown<\/em> decision itself deserved special respect in part because it “has been repeatedly reaffirmed by a changing group of justices<\/a>.” However, a pending Supreme Court case, Students for Fair Admissions v. U. North Carolina<\/em><\/a>, may support his thoughts regarding the ephemerality of some of the Court\u2019s decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While Brown <\/em>is, one hopes, here to stay, Students for Fair Admissions <\/em>will likely entail a withdrawal fromthe Supreme Court\u2019s recent jurisprudence on race-conscious college admissions in Grutter v. Bollinger<\/em><\/a>, which held that consideration of race as a factor in admissions by a state law school does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th<\/sup> Amendment because supporting student body diversity constitutes a compelling state interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The 5-4 decision in Grutter<\/em> was tempered somewhat by Justice O\u2019Connor\u2019s assertion that \u201c[T]he Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.\u201d Twenty years later, without the end of racially unequal college attendance in sight, a markedly more conservative Court in Students for Fair Admissions <\/em>seems poised to call in Justice O\u2019Connor\u2019s debt to the future and rule that private and<\/em> public institutions of higher education may not use race as a factor in admissions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If the newest \u201cnine men\u201d (now five men, and four women) choose to end twenty years of permissible race-conscious college admissions, they will halt a briefly-held but powerful remedy used to great effect\u2014a discouraging development. But the Supreme Court\u2019s concerns about its legacy, and with \u201csee[ing] its work fade in time,\u201d should not prevent the progressive side of the Court from fulfilling the role outlined in Carolene Products<\/em> when facing issues of civil rights and liberties. There is always the hope that some of its decisions will be as enduring as Brown. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Juliana Peluso, JD Anticipated May 2024, Law & Public Policy Scholar  In 1952, former Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist\u2014then a law clerk to Justice Robert H. Jackson\u2014prepared a memorandum titled \u201cA Random Thought on the Segregation Cases\u201d in anticipation of the Court\u2019s deliberation on school segregation in Brown v. Board of Education. In it, then-clerk Rehnquist rejected the federal judiciary\u2019s involvement in \u201cemotionally charged subject matter,\u201d particularly with regard to issues entailing \u201crelations between the individual and the … <\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":15,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"generate_page_header":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"coauthors":[67],"class_list":["post-2681","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blog","infinite-scroll-item","masonry-post","generate-columns","tablet-grid-50","mobile-grid-100","grid-parent","grid-50"],"yoast_head":"\r\nA \u201cTransient Majority?\u201d Responding to Chief Justice Rehnquist\u2019s \u201cRandom Thought on the Segregation Cases\u201d in Light of SFFA v. U. North Carolina - Law & Public Policy Program<\/title>\r\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\r\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/a-transient-majority-responding-to-chief-justice-rehnquists-random-thought-on-the-segregation-cases-in-light-of-sffa-v-u-north-carolina\/\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A \u201cTransient Majority?\u201d Responding to Chief Justice Rehnquist\u2019s \u201cRandom Thought on the Segregation Cases\u201d in Light of SFFA v. U. North Carolina - Law & Public Policy Program\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Juliana Peluso, JD Anticipated May 2024, Law & Public Policy Scholar  In 1952, former Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist\u2014then a law clerk to Justice Robert H. Jackson\u2014prepared a memorandum titled \u201cA Random Thought on the Segregation Cases\u201d in anticipation of the Court\u2019s deliberation on school segregation in Brown v. Board of Education. In it, then-clerk Rehnquist rejected the federal judiciary\u2019s involvement in \u201cemotionally charged subject matter,\u201d particularly with regard to issues entailing \u201crelations between the individual and the ... Read More\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/a-transient-majority-responding-to-chief-justice-rehnquists-random-thought-on-the-segregation-cases-in-light-of-sffa-v-u-north-carolina\/\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Law & Public Policy Program\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-05-01T01:20:04+00:00\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-05-01T13:42:47+00:00\" \/>\r\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Beckie Schatschneider\" \/>\r\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\r\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Beckie Schatschneider\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\r\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/a-transient-majority-responding-to-chief-justice-rehnquists-random-thought-on-the-segregation-cases-in-light-of-sffa-v-u-north-carolina\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/a-transient-majority-responding-to-chief-justice-rehnquists-random-thought-on-the-segregation-cases-in-light-of-sffa-v-u-north-carolina\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Beckie Schatschneider\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0e60476b5e8ae1f6ece93f01e0b9797d\"},\"headline\":\"A \u201cTransient Majority?\u201d Responding to Chief Justice Rehnquist\u2019s \u201cRandom Thought on the Segregation Cases\u201d in Light of SFFA v. U. North Carolina\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-05-01T01:20:04+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-05-01T13:42:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/a-transient-majority-responding-to-chief-justice-rehnquists-random-thought-on-the-segregation-cases-in-light-of-sffa-v-u-north-carolina\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1807,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Blog\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/a-transient-majority-responding-to-chief-justice-rehnquists-random-thought-on-the-segregation-cases-in-light-of-sffa-v-u-north-carolina\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/a-transient-majority-responding-to-chief-justice-rehnquists-random-thought-on-the-segregation-cases-in-light-of-sffa-v-u-north-carolina\\\/\",\"name\":\"A \u201cTransient Majority?\u201d Responding to Chief Justice Rehnquist\u2019s \u201cRandom Thought on the Segregation Cases\u201d in Light of SFFA v. U. North Carolina - Law & Public Policy Program\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2023-05-01T01:20:04+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-05-01T13:42:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/a-transient-majority-responding-to-chief-justice-rehnquists-random-thought-on-the-segregation-cases-in-light-of-sffa-v-u-north-carolina\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/a-transient-majority-responding-to-chief-justice-rehnquists-random-thought-on-the-segregation-cases-in-light-of-sffa-v-u-north-carolina\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/a-transient-majority-responding-to-chief-justice-rehnquists-random-thought-on-the-segregation-cases-in-light-of-sffa-v-u-north-carolina\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A \u201cTransient Majority?\u201d Responding to Chief Justice Rehnquist\u2019s \u201cRandom Thought on the Segregation Cases\u201d in Light of SFFA v. U. North Carolina\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/\",\"name\":\"Law & Public Policy Program\",\"description\":\"Temple University Beasley School of Law\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Law & Public Policy Program\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/cms\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/lppptest.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/cms\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/lppptest.png\",\"width\":1835,\"height\":496,\"caption\":\"Law & Public Policy Program\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0e60476b5e8ae1f6ece93f01e0b9797d\",\"name\":\"Beckie Schatschneider\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/lppp\\\/author\\\/rschatsc\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\r\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"A \u201cTransient Majority?\u201d Responding to Chief Justice Rehnquist\u2019s \u201cRandom Thought on the Segregation Cases\u201d in Light of SFFA v. U. North Carolina - Law & Public Policy Program","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/a-transient-majority-responding-to-chief-justice-rehnquists-random-thought-on-the-segregation-cases-in-light-of-sffa-v-u-north-carolina\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A \u201cTransient Majority?\u201d Responding to Chief Justice Rehnquist\u2019s \u201cRandom Thought on the Segregation Cases\u201d in Light of SFFA v. U. North Carolina - Law & Public Policy Program","og_description":"Juliana Peluso, JD Anticipated May 2024, Law & Public Policy Scholar  In 1952, former Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist\u2014then a law clerk to Justice Robert H. Jackson\u2014prepared a memorandum titled \u201cA Random Thought on the Segregation Cases\u201d in anticipation of the Court\u2019s deliberation on school segregation in Brown v. Board of Education. In it, then-clerk Rehnquist rejected the federal judiciary\u2019s involvement in \u201cemotionally charged subject matter,\u201d particularly with regard to issues entailing \u201crelations between the individual and the ... Read More","og_url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/a-transient-majority-responding-to-chief-justice-rehnquists-random-thought-on-the-segregation-cases-in-light-of-sffa-v-u-north-carolina\/","og_site_name":"Law & Public Policy Program","article_published_time":"2023-05-01T01:20:04+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-05-01T13:42:47+00:00","author":"Beckie Schatschneider","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Beckie Schatschneider","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/a-transient-majority-responding-to-chief-justice-rehnquists-random-thought-on-the-segregation-cases-in-light-of-sffa-v-u-north-carolina\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/a-transient-majority-responding-to-chief-justice-rehnquists-random-thought-on-the-segregation-cases-in-light-of-sffa-v-u-north-carolina\/"},"author":{"name":"Beckie Schatschneider","@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/#\/schema\/person\/0e60476b5e8ae1f6ece93f01e0b9797d"},"headline":"A \u201cTransient Majority?\u201d Responding to Chief Justice Rehnquist\u2019s \u201cRandom Thought on the Segregation Cases\u201d in Light of SFFA v. U. North Carolina","datePublished":"2023-05-01T01:20:04+00:00","dateModified":"2023-05-01T13:42:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/a-transient-majority-responding-to-chief-justice-rehnquists-random-thought-on-the-segregation-cases-in-light-of-sffa-v-u-north-carolina\/"},"wordCount":1807,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Blog"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/a-transient-majority-responding-to-chief-justice-rehnquists-random-thought-on-the-segregation-cases-in-light-of-sffa-v-u-north-carolina\/","url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/a-transient-majority-responding-to-chief-justice-rehnquists-random-thought-on-the-segregation-cases-in-light-of-sffa-v-u-north-carolina\/","name":"A \u201cTransient Majority?\u201d Responding to Chief Justice Rehnquist\u2019s \u201cRandom Thought on the Segregation Cases\u201d in Light of SFFA v. U. North Carolina - Law & Public Policy Program","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/#website"},"datePublished":"2023-05-01T01:20:04+00:00","dateModified":"2023-05-01T13:42:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/a-transient-majority-responding-to-chief-justice-rehnquists-random-thought-on-the-segregation-cases-in-light-of-sffa-v-u-north-carolina\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/a-transient-majority-responding-to-chief-justice-rehnquists-random-thought-on-the-segregation-cases-in-light-of-sffa-v-u-north-carolina\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/a-transient-majority-responding-to-chief-justice-rehnquists-random-thought-on-the-segregation-cases-in-light-of-sffa-v-u-north-carolina\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A \u201cTransient Majority?\u201d Responding to Chief Justice Rehnquist\u2019s \u201cRandom Thought on the Segregation Cases\u201d in Light of SFFA v. U. North Carolina"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/","name":"Law & Public Policy Program","description":"Temple University Beasley School of Law","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/#organization","name":"Law & Public Policy Program","url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/lppptest.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/lppptest.png","width":1835,"height":496,"caption":"Law & Public Policy Program"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/#\/schema\/person\/0e60476b5e8ae1f6ece93f01e0b9797d","name":"Beckie Schatschneider","url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/author\/rschatsc\/"}]}},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paQyul-Hf","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2681","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/15"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2681"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2681\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2687,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2681\/revisions\/2687"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2681"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2681"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2681"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/lppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=2681"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}