Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1 551 U.S. ____, 127 S. Ct. 2738 (2007) Seattle had a policy where students could choose to go to any high school in the district. However, when too many students applied to the same school, a system of tiebreakers was used to determine who got to go. One of the tiebreakers was a racial factor intended to maintain diversity. That meant either whites or non-whites could be favored by the policy. A group of parents sued, saying that the tiebreakers were a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The US Supreme Court found that the tiebreakers were an unconstitutional violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The US Supreme Court found that since this policy involved a suspect classification, the level of review should be strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny is the level of review used when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed, or when the government action involves the use of a suspect classification such as race that may render it void under the Equal Protection Clause. In order to pass a strict scrutiny review, a law must: Be justified by a compelling governmental interest. Be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Use least restrictive means to achieve that interest. In this case, the Court found that there was no compelling government interest. The Court noted that one compelling governmental interest would be to remedy past discrimination, but Seattle schools had never been segregated. The Court noted even if you agreed that there was a compelling governmental interest in achieving a diverse student body, the law was too overbroad and not narrowly tailored enough to achieve its goals. The policy did not use race as an assessment for broader diversity, instead, they use solely race as a factor for assigning students to different schools.