United States v. Paradise
Significance, White Officers Intervene, "narrowly Tailored" Requirement Found Acceptable, Impact
Phillip Paradise, Jr.
The United States claimed that the anti-race discrimination remedy ordered by the district court violated the Equal Protection Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment. (The court order required a "one-for-one" promotion scheme of one black police officer for every white police officer advanced to the rank of corporal.)
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
Charles Fried, U.S. Solicitor General
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
J. Richard Cohen
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, William J. Brennan, Jr. (writing for the Court), Thurgood Marshall, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., John Paul Stevens
Sandra Day O'Connor, William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Byron R. White
Date of Decision
25 February 1987
The Supreme Court affirmed prior decisions of the lower courts, that race-conscious relief ordered by the district court did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. They held that principle of hiring and promoting one black for one white police officer was appropriate and did not violate the constitutional rights of due process or equal protection.
- Louisiana v. United States, 380 U.S. 145 (1965).
- Green v. New Kent County School Board, 391 U.S. 430 (1968).
- Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971).
- Sheet Metal Workers v. EEOC, 478 U.S. 421 (1986).
- Biskupic, Joan, and Elder Witt. Congressional Quarterly's Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1996.
- United States v. Place - Significance, Impact, Unabomber Caught
- United States v. Leon - Significance, Further Readings
- United States v. Paradise - Significance
- United States v. Paradise - White Officers Intervene
- United States v. Paradise - "narrowly Tailored" Requirement Found Acceptable
- United States v. Paradise - Impact
- Other Free Encyclopedias