{"id":54067,"date":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","date_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/supreme\/legal-commentary\/the-supreme-courts-split-over-public-school-integration-who-really-betrayed-browns-legacy.html"},"modified":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","slug":"the-supreme-courts-split-over-public-school-integration-who-really-betrayed-browns-legacy","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-commentary\/the-supreme-courts-split-over-public-school-integration-who-really-betrayed-browns-legacy.html","title":{"rendered":"The Supreme Court&#8217;s Split Over Public School Integration Who Really Betrayed Brown&#8217;s Legacy?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<div class=\"wp-container-core-columns-is-layout-9d6595d7  fl-block-columns fl-sectionWithSidebar fl-container fl-flex fl-flex-wrap fl-gap30\">\n    \n    <div class=\"fl-page-articles   fl-block-column fl-section-main fl-section-main-full-width\">\n        <div class=\"yui-g\" id=\"leftcol-module\">\n\n      <!-- Right Line of Links Section -->\n\n      <!-- BEGIN PICTURE INSERTION -->\n\n\n      <!-- BEGIN TITLE AND AUTHOR INSERTION -->\n\n      <table>\n\n        <tr>\n\n\n\n          <td width=\"100\" rowspan=\"3\" class=\"wiauthor\"><a href=\"\/legal-commentary\/michael-dorf-archive\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https://supreme.findlaw.com/static/f/images\/writ\/michael.dorf.jpg\" border=\"0\"><\/a><\/td>\n\n          <td class=\"wititle\"><h1>The Supreme Court&#8217;s Split Over Public School Integration: Who Really Betrayed Brown&#8217;s Legacy?<\/h1><\/td>\n        <\/tr>\n        <tr>\n          <td class=\"wiauthor\"><a href=\"\/legal-commentary\/michael-dorf-archive\" class=\"graybold\"><h2>By MICHAEL C. DORF<\/h2><\/a><\/td>\n        <\/tr>\n        <tr>\n          <td class=\"widate\">Monday, Jul. 02, 2007<\/td>\n\n        <\/tr>\n      <\/table>\n      <span class=\"smalltext\">\n\n\n<p><b> <\/b>On the last day of the 2006-07 Supreme Court Term, the Justices announced what pundits are calling a blockbuster decision: In <a href=\"https:\/\/caselaw.findlaw.com\/\" class=\"left-link\" rel=\"noopener\"><i>Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1<\/i><\/a>, a 5-4 majority ruled that school boards in Seattle and Louisville violated the Fourteenth Amendment&#8217;s Equal Protection Clause when they voluntarily implemented programs to combat <u>de<\/u> <u>facto<\/u> racial segregation in their respective public schools. The majority reasoned that the school boards&#8217; use of student race as a factor in school assignments was not, in constitutional argot, &#8220;narrowly tailored&#8221; to advance a compelling objective.<\/p> <p>In this column, I&#8217;ll briefly explain the issues that split the Justices and the reasons the ruling&#8217;s practical upshot is unclear. In addition, I&#8217;ll provide a historical account of the heated rhetoric that characterized every opinion in this case: the majority&#8217;s, two concurrences, and two dissents. <\/p> <div id=\"writthreetwenty\">\n<script language=\"Javascript\">dart_call(\"300x250\", \"ptile=2\", 0); <\/script><\/div>\n<p><b>Why the Ruling&#8217;s Practical Impact Is Unclear: The Views of Swing Justice Anthony Kennedy<\/b><\/p> <p>The practical impact of the ruling is unclear for several reasons. Chief Justice John Roberts announced the judgment of the Court, but he did not speak for a full majority in all particulars. Moreover, Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose fifth vote was critical to the outcome, parted company from the other members of the conservative majority on a key issue.<\/p> <p>In both Seattle and Louisville, the student assignment plans aimed at ensuring that the racial composition of every individual school did not grossly deviate from the racial composition of the district as a whole. Chief Justice Roberts&#8211;joined on this point by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito&#8211;decried this goal as impermissible &#8220;racial balancing.&#8221; Justice Kennedy, by contrast, thought that the school districts were attempting to achieve the compelling objective of diversity. <\/p> <p>However, though Justice Kennedy approved of the end, he, like the other conservative Justices, found that the <u>means<\/u> the school boards had chosen to achieve their objective were not narrowly tailored to serve that end. Among other things, all five of the Justices who voted to strike down the plans objected to the reductionism inherent in the binary classifications deployed: &#8220;white&#8221; or &#8220;nonwhite&#8221; in Seattle; &#8220;black&#8221; or &#8220;other&#8221; in Louisville.<\/p> <p>Because Justice Kennedy thought that the school boards&#8217; <u>ends<\/u> were constitutionally compelling, he left open the possibility that he might vote to uphold the use of race in student assignments in some future case in which a school board structures its program differently. In such a case, Justice Kennedy would then join the four dissenters from the <i>Parents Involved <\/i>ruling&#8211;Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer&#8211;to form a new majority to uphold some other use of race in a voluntary integration plan.<\/p> <p>Exactly what a permissible plan would look like is not entirely clear from Justice Kennedy&#8217;s concurring opinion. Accordingly, the principal short-term effect of the decision in <i>Parents Involved <\/i>may well be confusion and litigation. Predicting how that litigation ultimately ends is less a matter of discerning legal principles, than of reading Justice Kennedy&#8217;s mind (or the mind of whoever happens to be the &#8220;swing&#8221; Justice in the event that the issue ultimately returns to the Supreme Court after a change in personnel). Because that enterprise is sheer speculation, I&#8217;ll move on to discuss another important aspect of the decision.<\/p><!-- MIDDLE AD PLACEHOLDER -->\n<p><b>Which Side Betrayed <i>Brown<\/i>&#8216;s Legacy?<\/b><\/p> \n<p>Justices on both sides of the ruling accused those on the other side of betraying the legacy of the Court&#8217;s landmark 1954 <a href=\"https:\/\/caselaw.findlaw.com\/\" class=\"left-link\" rel=\"noopener\"><i>Brown v. Board of Education<\/i><\/a> ruling, which held <u>de<\/u> <u>jure<\/u> racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional.<\/p> <p>Which side in this debate is right? Both, and neither. <i>Brown <\/i>rested on notions of both liberty and equality. In that case, they pointed the same way. But in <i>Parents Involved<\/i>&#8211;as in the closely related debate over affirmative action&#8211;these principles pull in opposite directions.<\/p> <p><b> <\/b>The <i>Brown <\/i>decision famously overruled the Supreme Court&#8217;s separate-but-equal doctrine, announced in the 1896 case of <a href=\"https:\/\/caselaw.findlaw.com\/\" class=\"left-link\" rel=\"noopener\"><i>Plessy v. Ferguson<\/i><\/a>. Accordingly, and unsurprisingly,<b> <\/b>exponents of <i>Brown <\/i>have frequently turned to the lone dissent in <i>Plessy<\/i>, by Justice John Marshall Harlan (whose grandson, of the same name, later served with distinction on the Supreme Court as well). In that dissent, Justice Harlan boldly stated: &#8220;Our Constitution is color-blind.&#8221;<\/p> <p>Contemporary conservatives frequently invoke this language in support of the view that any governmental attention to race (or color) is virtually per se unconstitutional. For example, in <i>Parents Involved<\/i>, Justice Thomas noted that the late Justice Thurgood Marshall, who, as an attorney, argued <i>Brown <\/i>for the plaintiffs, considered Justice Harlan&#8217;s dissent a virtual &#8220;Bible&#8221; during the pre-<i>Brown <\/i>era. Justice Thomas thus suggested the following syllogism: (1) Thurgood Marshall, the ultimate authority on the meaning of <i>Brown<\/i>, understood the repudiation of <i>Plessy <\/i>as the vindication of Harlan&#8217;s <i>Plessy <\/i>dissent; (2) that dissent espoused a principle of color-blindness; and therefore (3) <i>Brown <\/i>enshrines a principle of color-blindness.<\/p> <p>Yet what are we to make of the fact that as a Justice, Marshall rejected color-blindness? In affirmative action cases, Marshall thought that government use of race to benefit traditionally disadvantaged racial groups (especially African-Americans) should be judged by a somewhat more forgiving standard than the &#8220;strict scrutiny&#8221; the Court applied to racial classifications that disadvantaged traditionally subordinated groups.  How can this view be reconciled with Justice Thomas&#8217;s syllogism? It can&#8217;t. Thus, Justice Thomas and the <i>Parents Involved <\/i>majority suggest that the later Marshall and contemporary liberals who purport to speak on his behalf have misrepresented, misunderstood, or misremembered what <i>Brown <\/i>was all about.<\/p> <p>There is, however, a more generous understanding of the rejection of color-blindness by the later Marshall and contemporary liberals. They can point to the two sentences in Harlan&#8217;s <i>Plessy <\/i>dissent that immediately precede the claim that our Constitution is color-blind. There Harlan wrote, &#8220;in view of the constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here.&#8221;<\/p> <p>What made racial segregation odious, liberals say, is that it was part of a caste system in which African-Americans were systematically subordinated on the basis of race. That is, after all, why we worry so much more about racial divisions than about other divisions in our society, such as height, eye color, or left- or right-handedness. These latter distinctions do not carry nearly the same moral freight as distinctions drawn on the basis of race because we have never had systematic subordination on the basis of height, eye color or handedness.<\/p> <p>By the same token, liberals argue, where official racial distinctions do not reinforce the notion of a superior race and a subordinate race, there is less reason to worry about these distinctions. Accordingly, since the 1970s, liberals have generally thought that a range of voluntary efforts to integrate various institutions in American life should not be equated&#8211;either morally or legally&#8211;with <u>de<\/u> <u>jure<\/u> segregation of the Jim Crow era.<\/p> <p>We can see the emphasis on different parts of Justice Harlan&#8217;s <i>Plessy <\/i>dissent in the rhetoric as well as the results of Supreme Court cases. In <i>Parents Involved<\/i>, Chief Justice Roberts wrote: &#8220;The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.&#8221; By contrast, nearly thirty years earlier, the late Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in <a href=\"https:\/\/caselaw.findlaw.com\/\" class=\"left-link\" rel=\"noopener\"><i>University of California Regents v. Bakke<\/i><\/a>: &#8220;In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race.&#8221;<\/p> <p><b>A Debate Going Back to Slavery<\/b><\/p> <p>The debate between conservatives who champion the color-blindness principle and liberals who champion the anti-caste principle has roots even deeper than Justice Harlan&#8217;s <i>Plessy <\/i>dissent. These roots go back to <a href=\"https:\/\/constitution.findlaw.com\/amendment14.html\" class=\"left-link\" rel=\"noopener\">the Fourteenth Amendment<\/a> itself.<\/p> <p>The Reconstruction Congress that proposed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments aimed to dismantle both slavery and the <u>de<\/u> <u>facto<\/u> slavery of the Black Codes that quickly arose to take its place. But what is the opposite of slavery? Slavery denies to enslaved persons both the liberty and the equality enjoyed by free persons. Accordingly, anti-slavery has traditionally had both a libertarian and an egalitarian dimension.<\/p> <p>The civil rights movement of the second half of the Twentieth Century&#8211;which was catalyzed in part by <i>Brown<\/i>&#8211;has tended to be egalitarian. For example, although Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights leaders were lionized for their views about racial classifications, their actual agenda had a strongly egalitarian component, including a significant redistributionist dimension.<\/p> <p>By contrast, the Republican Party of the Reconstruction era and into the earlier Twentieth Century had a more strongly libertarian view of anti-slavery. Under the banner of &#8220;free men, free markets,&#8221; this earlier civil rights movement saw slavery as the unjust denial of the individual&#8217;s natural right to sell his labor in the market. The end of slavery was, for this generation, the real beginning of capitalism.<\/p> <p>Although the path is not entirely straight, one can trace the differences in last week&#8217;s Supreme Court decision to these competing views of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Roberts and the conservatives see all racial classifications&#8211;even including those that aim to promote racial integration&#8211;as undue interference with the individual&#8217;s liberty to be treated without any regard to his or her race. In turn, the liberals see efforts at racial integration as continuing the egalitarian and social mission of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Kennedy, feeling both the libertarian and egalitarian impulses, finds himself torn.<\/p> <p><b>A Case About What the Constitution Permits, Not What it Requires<\/b><\/p> <p>Given that the Fourteenth Amendment has both egalitarian and libertarian roots, can we say that the liberals are right to emphasize the former, and the conservatives wrong to emphasize the latter, or vice-versa? Perhaps we can.<\/p> <p>The legal question in <i>Parents Involved <\/i>was not what the Equal Protection Clause <u>requires<\/u> but only what it <u>permits<\/u>. Even under the view of the dissenters, a school district in which <u>de<\/u> <u>facto<\/u> segregated schools result from <u>de<\/u> <u>facto<\/u> residential segregation and parental preferences for which the state does not bear direct responsibility, can choose to adopt a program aimed at integrating its schools, but has no constitutional obligation to do so. Thus, the dissenters would have left to local school boards the discretion to choose between the egalitarian and libertarian visions of the Fourteenth Amendment.<\/p> <p>By contrast, in finding that the duly elected school boards in Seattle and Louisville violated the Constitution, the majority insisted on its own&#8211;libertarian&#8211;conception of the Fourteenth Amendment to the exclusion of the egalitarian alternative. In his opinion for the Court in <a href=\"https:\/\/caselaw.findlaw.com\/\" class=\"left-link\" rel=\"noopener\"><i>Morse v. Frederick<\/i><\/a> (the &#8220;Bong Hits 4 Jesus&#8221; case) just three days earlier, Chief Justice Roberts said that the difficult job facing local school officials warrants giving them considerable latitude even in the face of a First Amendment challenge. Yet in <i>Parents Involved<\/i>, he suggested that deference to school boards on questions of race-based student assignments would be inconsistent with the Court&#8217;s insistence, since <i>Brown<\/i>, on the primacy of the Equal Protection guarantee.<\/p> <p>That would be a valid distinction between <i>Morse <\/i>and <i>Parents Involved <\/i>if the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause were clear-cut. But that is hardly true. Supreme Court statements going back to the late 1960s indicated that race-based integration plans are a constitutionally permissible choice of school boards. In these circumstances, the burden on the majority was to show that its libertarian &#8220;color-blind&#8221; conception of the Equal Protection Clause was so superior to the egalitarian &#8220;anti-caste&#8221; conception, as to make the latter completely unavailable to elected officials. Given the high standards that ought to apply to Justices who preach judicial restraint, the <i>Parents Involved <\/i>majority failed to meet that burden.<\/p>\n\n\n<\/span>\n\n\n\n<hr size=\"1\">\n<p class=\"authorfoot\">\n\n<!-- BEGIN AUTHORS FOOTNOTE -->\n<a name=\"bio\"><\/a>\nMichael C. Dorf is the Isidor &amp; Seville Sulzbacher Professor of Law at Columbia University. He is the author of <i>No Litmus Test: Law and Politics in the Twenty-First Century<\/i> and he blogs at <a href=\"http:\/\/www.michaeldorf.org\/\" target=\"_blank\" class=\"author-link\" rel=\"noopener\">www.michaeldorf.org<\/a>.\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"was-this-helpful\">\n    <div\n            class=\"was-this-helpful__question-container\"\n            aria-labelledby=\"was-this-helpful__question\"\n            role=\"group\"\n    >\n        <span\n                id=\"was-this-helpful__question\"\n                class=\"was-this-helpful__question fl-text-lg-bold\"\n        >Was this helpful?<\/span>\n        <button\n                class=\"was-this-helpful__button fl-text-sm\"\n                aria-label=\"Yes\"\n                value=\"yes\"\n        >\n            <span class=\"was-this-helpful__button-text fl-text-bold\">Yes<\/span>\n            <i class=\"was-this-helpful__button-icon\">\n                <svg width=\"22\" height=\"22\" viewBox=\"0 0 22 22\" fill=\"none\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\">\n                    <g id=\"thumbs-up\" clip-path=\"url(#clip0_604_3418)\">\n                        <path id=\"Vector\"\n                              d=\"M6 21H3C2.46957 21 1.96086 20.7893 1.58579 20.4142C1.21071 20.0391 1 19.5304 1 19V12C1 11.4696 1.21071 10.9609 1.58579 10.5858C1.96086 10.2107 2.46957 10 3 10H6M13 8V4C13 3.20435 12.6839 2.44129 12.1213 1.87868C11.5587 1.31607 10.7956 1 10 1L6 10V21H17.28C17.7623 21.0055 18.2304 20.8364 18.5979 20.524C18.9654 20.2116 19.2077 19.7769 19.28 19.3L20.66 10.3C20.7035 10.0134 20.6842 9.72068 20.6033 9.44225C20.5225 9.16382 20.3821 8.90629 20.1919 8.68751C20.0016 8.46873 19.7661 8.29393 19.5016 8.17522C19.2371 8.0565 18.9499 7.99672 18.66 8H13Z\"\n                              stroke=\"#666666\" stroke-width=\"2\" stroke-linecap=\"round\"\n                              stroke-linejoin=\"round\"><\/path>\n                    <\/g>\n                    <defs>\n                        <clipPath id=\"clip0_604_3418\">\n                            <rect width=\"22\" height=\"22\" fill=\"white\"><\/rect>\n                        <\/clipPath>\n                    <\/defs>\n                <\/svg>\n            <\/i>\n        <\/button>\n        <button\n                class=\"was-this-helpful__button fl-text-sm\"\n                aria-label=\"No\"\n                value=\"no\"\n        >\n            <span class=\"was-this-helpful__button-text fl-text-bold\">No<\/span>\n            <i class=\"was-this-helpful__button-icon\">\n                <svg width=\"22\" height=\"22\" viewBox=\"0 0 22 22\" fill=\"none\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\">\n                    <g id=\"thumbs-down\" clip-path=\"url(#clip0_604_3423)\">\n                        <path id=\"Vector\"\n                              d=\"M16 0.999995H18.67C19.236 0.989986 19.7859 1.18813 20.2154 1.55681C20.645 1.9255 20.9242 2.43905 21 3V10C20.9242 10.5609 20.645 11.0745 20.2154 11.4432C19.7859 11.8119 19.236 12.01 18.67 12H16M9.00003 14V18C9.00003 18.7956 9.3161 19.5587 9.87871 20.1213C10.4413 20.6839 11.2044 21 12 21L16 12V0.999995H4.72003C4.2377 0.994543 3.76965 1.16359 3.40212 1.47599C3.0346 1.78839 2.79235 2.22309 2.72003 2.7L1.34003 11.7C1.29652 11.9866 1.31586 12.2793 1.39669 12.5577C1.47753 12.8362 1.61793 13.0937 1.80817 13.3125C1.99842 13.5313 2.23395 13.7061 2.49846 13.8248C2.76297 13.9435 3.05012 14.0033 3.34003 14H9.00003Z\"\n                              stroke=\"#666666\" stroke-width=\"2\" stroke-linecap=\"round\" stroke-linejoin=\"round\"\/>\n                    <\/g>\n                    <defs>\n                        <clipPath id=\"clip0_604_3423\">\n                            <rect width=\"22\" height=\"22\" fill=\"white\"\/>\n                        <\/clipPath>\n                    <\/defs>\n                <\/svg>\n            <\/i>\n        <\/button>\n    <\/div>\n    <span class=\"was-this-helpful__taken-action fl-text-sm-bold\"><\/span>\n    <div class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback-container\">\n        <div class=\"was-this-helpful__choose-option-message\" role=\"status\">\n            <p class=\"was-this-helpful__choose-option-message-text\"><\/p>\n        <\/div>\n        <form class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback-form\">\n            <div class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback was-this-helpful__feedback--positive\">\n                <fieldset>\n                    <legend class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\" tabindex=\"0\">Why was this helpful?<\/legend>\n                    <div class=\"fl-radio-button-field fl-flex was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\">\n                        <input\n                                id=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--understandable\"\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-input\"\n                                type=\"radio\"\n                                name=\"positive-feedback\"\n                                value=\"Easy to understand\"\n                        >\n                        <label\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-label fl-text-sm was-this-helpful__radio-label\"\n                                for=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--understandable\"\n                        >Easy to understand<\/label>\n                    <\/div>\n                    <div class=\"fl-radio-button-field fl-flex was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\">\n                        <input\n                                id=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--solved-problem\"\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-input\"\n                                type=\"radio\"\n                                name=\"positive-feedback\"\n                                value=\"Solved my problem\"\n                        >\n                        <label\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-label fl-text-sm was-this-helpful__radio-label\"\n                                for=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--solved-problem\"\n                        >Solved my problem<\/label>\n                    <\/div>\n                    <div class=\"fl-radio-button-field fl-flex was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\">\n                        <input\n                                id=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--other\"\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-input\"\n                                type=\"radio\"\n                                name=\"positive-feedback\"\n                                value=\"Other\"\n                        >\n                        <label\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-label fl-text-sm was-this-helpful__radio-label\"\n                                for=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--other\"\n                        >Other<\/label>\n                    <\/div>\n                <\/fieldset>\n            <\/div>\n            <div class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback was-this-helpful__feedback--negative\">\n                <fieldset>\n                    <legend class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\" tabindex=\"0\">Why was this not helpful?<\/legend>\n                    <div class=\"was-this-helpful__choose-option-message\" role=\"status\">\n                        <p class=\"was-this-helpful__choose-option-message-text\"><\/p>\n                    <\/div>\n                    <div class=\"fl-radio-button-field fl-flex was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\">\n                        <input\n                                id=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--missing-info\"\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-input\"\n                                type=\"radio\"\n                                name=\"negative-feedback\"\n                                value=\"Missing Information\"\n                        >\n                        <label\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-label fl-text-sm was-this-helpful__radio-label\"\n                                for=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--missing-info\"\n                        >Missing the information I need<\/label>\n                    <\/div>\n                    <div class=\"fl-radio-button-field fl-flex was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\">\n                        <input\n                                id=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--complicated\"\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-input\"\n                                type=\"radio\"\n                                name=\"negative-feedback\"\n                                value=\"Too complicated\"\n                        >\n                        <label\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-label fl-text-sm was-this-helpful__radio-label\"\n                                for=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--complicated\"\n                        >Too complicated \/ too many steps<\/label>\n                    <\/div>\n                    <div class=\"fl-radio-button-field fl-flex was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\">\n                        <input\n                                id=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--dated\"\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-input\"\n                                type=\"radio\"\n                                name=\"negative-feedback\"\n                                value=\"Out of date\"\n                        >\n                        <label\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-label fl-text-sm was-this-helpful__radio-label\"\n                                for=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--dated\"\n                        >Out of date<\/label>\n                    <\/div>\n                    <div class=\"fl-radio-button-field fl-flex was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\">\n                        <input\n                                id=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--negative-other\"\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-input\"\n                                type=\"radio\"\n                                name=\"negative-feedback\"\n                                value=\"Other\"\n                        >\n                        <label\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-label fl-text-sm was-this-helpful__radio-label\"\n                                for=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--negative-other\"\n                        >Other<\/label>\n                    <\/div>\n                <\/fieldset>\n            <\/div>\n            <div class=\"was-this-helpful__form-buttons-container\">\n                <button\n                    class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback-button was-this-helpful__feedback-button--positive at-feedback-submit fl-button secondary\"\n                    type=\"submit\"\n                >\n                    <span class=\"fl-button-content\">Submit<\/span>\n                    <i\n                        class=\"fa fa-angle-right medium\"\n                        aria-hidden=\"true\"\n                    ><\/i>\n                <\/button>\n                <button\n                    class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback-button was-this-helpful__feedback-button--cancel fl-button primary disabled\"\n                    type=\"reset\"\n                >\n                    <span class=\"fl-button-content\">Cancel<\/span>\n                    <i\n                        class=\"fa fa-times-circle medium\"\n                        aria-hidden=\"true\"\n                    ><\/i>\n                <\/button>\n            <\/div>\n        <\/form>\n    <\/div>\n    <div class=\"was-this-helpful__thank-you-message\" role=\"status\">\n        <i class=\"was-this-helpful__thank-you-message-icon fa fa-check\"><\/i>\n        <p class=\"was-this-helpful__thank-you-message-text\" aria-live=\"polite\"><\/p>\n    <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n    <\/div>\n    \n    <div class=\"fl-block-column fl-section-sidebar\">\n        \n    <\/div>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"parent":49876,"menu_order":0,"template":"app\/Http\/Controllers\/Templates\/ArticlePageController.php","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_stopmodifiedupdate":false,"_modified_date":"","_cloudinary_featured_overwrite":false},"class_list":["post-54067","supreme","type-supreme","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/supreme\/54067","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/supreme"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/supreme"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/supreme\/49876"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=54067"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}