4 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 12 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Fullilove v. Klutznick.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Fullilove v. Klutznick Anchor | green | “hen race-based action is necessary to further a compelling interest, such action is within the constitutional constraints if it satisfies the 'narrow tailoring' test this court has set out in previous cases.” | 3 |
| 2 | Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education | green | “lthough its precise contours are uncertain, a state interest in the promotion of racial diversity has been found to be sufficiently 'compelling' at least in the context of higher education to support the use of racial considerations in furthering that interest.” | 3 |
| 3 | Timothy Jansen, Cross-Appellants v. City of Cincinnati v. Tilford Youngblood, Prospective Intervenors, Cross-Appellees | green | “proffering this alleged violation of the consent decree as an affirmative defense is directly counter to the city's interest.” | 3 |
| 4 | Hopwood v. State of Tex. | green | “against this historical backdrop , the law school's commitment to affirmative action in the admissions process evolved.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.