Citation network
Johnson Vs. California
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 23, 2005
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Syllabus October Term, 2004 Johnson V. CaliforniaSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States Johnson V. CaliforniaSearch
-
s constitutionality should be reviewed under the deferential standard articulated in Turner v. SafleySearch
-
as an express racial classification, Shaw v. RenoSearch
-
years ago in Brown v. BoardSearch
-
The Court has previously applied a heightened standard of review in evaluating racial segregation in prisons. Lee v. WashingtonSearch
-
with proper prison administration, but also bolsters the legitimacy of the entire criminal justice system. Cf. Batson v. KentuckySearch
-
justifying only those uses of race that are narrowly tailored to address those necessities, see, e.g., Grutter v. BollingerSearch
-
or the District Court, to apply strict scrutiny in the first instance. See, e.g., Consolidated Rail Corporation v. GottshallSearch
-
opinion, in which Scalia, J., joined. Rehnquist, C. J., took no part in the decision of the case. Johnson v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Johnson V. CaliforniaSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 03-636 Garrison S. Johnson, Petitioner V. CaliforniaSearch
-
a claim for racial discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Johnson v. CaliforniaSearch
-
s policy should be reviewed under the deferential standard we articulated in Turner v. SafleySearch
-
racial classifications, such as race-conscious university admissions policies, see Grutter v. BollingerSearch
-
Adarand , supra , at 226, and race-based districting intended to improve minority representation, see Shaw v. RenoSearch
-
We have previously applied a heightened standard of review in evaluating racial segregation in prisons. In Lee v. WashingtonSearch
-
see also Washington v. SeattleSearch
-
applies to all racial classifications, and instead to apply the deferential standard of review articulated in Turner v. SafleySearch
-
see also Pell v. ProcunierSearch
-
Lone v. EstateSearch
-
quoting Price v. JohnstonSearch
-
limits on inmate correspondence, Shaw v. MurphySearch
-
access to courts, Lewis v. CaseySearch
-
restrictions on receipt of subscription publications, Thornburgh v. AbbottSearch
-
applied Turner to some due process claims, such as involuntary medication of mentally ill prisoners, Washington v. HarperSearch
-
And public respect for our system of justice is undermined when the system discriminates based on race. Cf. Batson v. KentuckySearch
-
standard. See Hope v. PelzerSearch
-
where an inmate claimed that they violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment (quoting Hudson v. McMillianSearch
-
because the integrity of the criminal justice system depends on full compliance with the Eighth Amendment. See Spain v. ProcunierSearch
-
plans to strict scrutiny when States draw district lines based predominantly on race. Compare generally Vieth v. JubilierSearch
-
U. S. 267 (2004) (partisan gerrymandering), with Shaw v. RenoSearch
-
quoting Plessy v. FergusonSearch
-
for the Ninth Circuit, or the District Court, to apply it in the first instance. See Consolidated Rail Corporation v. GottshalSearch
-
Lucas v. SouthSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial