Argument of Speaker
Mr. Speaker: Justice O’Connor has the opinion to announce in Johnson against California.
Argument of Justice O'Connor
Mr. O'Connor: This case comes to us on writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The California Department of Corrections has an unwritten policy of racially segregating prisoners in double cells in reception centers for up to 60 days each time they enter a new correctional facility.
During that time, prison officials evaluate inmates to determine their ultimate placement.
The claim is that this system of segregation is necessary to prevent violence caused by racial gangs.
The petitioner in this case, Garrison Johnson, is an African-American inmate in the California Correctional System.
He has been incarcerated since 1987 in a number of prison facilities.
Upon his arrival at each facility, Johnson has been double-celled with another African-American inmate.
Johnson filed suit alleging that California’s policy violated his right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment by assigning him cellmates on the basis of race.
The District Court granted summary judgment for the State and the Ninth Circuit affirmed under the deferential standard of review which we adopted in Turner versus Safley for prison administration.
In an opinion filed with the Clerk of the Court today, we reverse the Ninth Circuit’s judgment.
We hold that strict scrutiny is the proper standard of review for Johnson’s constitutional challenge to California’s policy.
We have held repeatedly that all racial classifications imposed by the government must be analyzed by reviewing court under so-called strict scrutiny.
Under that test, the government has the burden of proving that racial classifications are narrowly tailored measures that further compelling governmental interest.
We insist on strict scrutiny because racial classifications raise special fears of motivation by invidious purpose, and strict scrutiny enables courts to smoke out any illegitimate uses of race.
The more deferential standard of review articulated in Turner versus Safley is too lenient for this purpose.
We do not decide the constitutionality of California’s policy today.
We remand for the lower courts to decide that question after applying the proper standard.
Justice Stevens has filed a dissenting opinion; Justice Thomas has also filed a dissenting opinion which Justice Scalia has joined; Justice Ginsburg has filed a concurring opinion joined by Justices Souter and Breyer.
