54

Cite as: 515 U.S. 70 (1995) [page] 113

O'CONNOR, J., concurring

100 U.S. 339, 345 (1880), JUSTICE THOMAS cogently observes
that "what the federal courts cannot do at the federal level
they cannot do against the States; in either case, Article III
courts are constrained by the inherent constitutional limitations
on their powers." Post, at 132. Unlike Congress,
which enjoys " 'discretion in determining whether and what
legislation is needed to secure the guarantees of the Fourteenth
Amendment,' " Croson, supra, at 490 (quoting Katzenback
v. Morgan, supra, at 651), federal courts have no
comparable license and must always observe their limited
judicial role. Indeed, in the school desegregation context,
federal courts are specifically admonished to "take into account
the interests of state and local authorities in managing
their own affairs," Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 281
(1977) (Milliken II). in light of the intrusion into the area of
education, "where States historically have been sovereign,"
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 564 (1995), and "to
which States lay claim by right of history and expertise," id.,
at 583 (KENNEDY, J., concurring).
In this case, it may be the "myriad factors of human existence,"
Swann, supra, at 22, that have prompted the white
exodus from KCMSD, and the District Court cannot justify
its transgression of the above constitutional principles simply
by invoking desegregative attractiveness. The Court
today discusses desegregative attractiveness only insofar as
it supports the salary increase order under review see ante,
at 84, 89-90, and properly refrains from addressing the
propriety of all the remedies that the District Court has
ordered, revised, and extended in the 18-year history of this
case. These remedies may also be improper to the extent
that they serve the same goals of desegregative attractiveness
and suburban comparability that we hold today to be
impermissible, and, conversely, the District Court may be
able to justify some remedies without reliance on these goals.
But these are questions that the Court rightly leaves to be
answered on remand. For now, it is enough to affirm the