Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote opinions about religion in public life, abortion, redistricting, wartime detention and university admissions. Five of them, from 1984 to 2004, are below. In Shaw and Grutter she wrote for the Court. In Hamdi she announced the judgment and wrote a plurality opinion. Casey is a joint opinion with two other justices, and Lynch is her concurrence.
Religion and the political community
Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), decided March 5, 1984. The Court upheld a city's Christmas display that included a crèche, and Chief Justice Burger wrote the opinion. O'Connor concurred. "The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community." Government, she wrote, can run afoul of that prohibition in two principal ways.
The undue burden
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), decided June 29, 1992. The controlling opinion was a joint opinion of Justices O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter. It held that principles of institutional integrity and stare decisis required that Roe's essential holding be retained, and that the undue burden standard should be employed: "An undue burden exists, and therefore a provision of law is invalid, if its purpose or effect is to place substantial obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus."
Districts drawn on race
Shaw v. Reno (1993), decided June 28, 1993. To comply with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, North Carolina drew a congressional map with a second majority-Black district. White voters challenged it. O'Connor, for the Court, held that they had stated a claim under the Equal Protection Clause by alleging that the plan was so irrational on its face that it could be understood only as an effort to segregate voters into separate districts on the basis of race. Redistricting legislation "so bizarre on its face that it is unexplainable on grounds other than race" demands close scrutiny.
War and the rights of citizens
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), decided June 28, 2004. Yaser Hamdi, an American citizen captured in Afghanistan, was classified by the Government as an "enemy combatant" for allegedly taking up arms with the Taliban. O'Connor announced the judgment and wrote a plurality opinion. A citizen held as an enemy combatant, she wrote, must receive notice of the factual basis for the classification and a fair opportunity to rebut the Government's assertions before a neutral decisionmaker. "A state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens."
Race in admissions
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), decided June 23, 2003. O'Connor wrote for the Court upholding the University of Michigan Law School's admissions policy. The Court found diversity to be a compelling state interest and the Law School's use of race narrowly tailored because race was only a "potential 'plus' factor." She added: "The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today."
What the five opinions show
Four of the five state a standard: the Establishment Clause line in Lynch, the undue burden in Casey, close scrutiny of districts drawn on race in Shaw, and notice and a fair hearing in Hamdi. Grutter applies strict scrutiny to a law school's use of race and sets a time frame, with the Court's expectation that preferences will no longer be necessary in 25 years.
Sources
- Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), 465 U.S. 668: Library of Congress, U.S. Reports
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), 505 U.S. 833: Library of Congress, U.S. Reports
- Shaw v. Reno (1993), 509 U.S. 630: Library of Congress, U.S. Reports
- Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004), 542 U.S. 507: Library of Congress, U.S. Reports
- Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), 539 U.S. 306: Library of Congress, U.S. Reports
Updated November 2026.
This post was rewritten with AI (Claude) and reviewed by an editor before publication.
