Academia, Constitutional Law, Politics, Society

Supreme Court Declares States Can Bar Racial And Other Preferences In University Admissions

Supreme CourtI was just on CNN discussing the decision in Schuette v. BAMN, reversing the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and declaring that the citizens of Michigan have the constitutional authority to prohibit racial and other preferences in university admissions. We addressed this case this term in my Supreme Court class and the students voted not only in the same way as the majority today but predicted this result. What was surprising was the vote — 6-2. Only Justice Sotomayor and Ginsberg voted to upheld the Sixth Circuit.

This is clearly a breakthrough decision for those who have opposed racial and other preferences in admissions. In the past, these issues have inevitably ended up in the courts as the final arbiter of the constitutionality of affirmative action programs. Now, the Supreme Court is saying overwhelmingly that citizens can make these decisions for themselves. It creates a clear avenue by which affirmative action could be curtailed by direct action of the voters — bringing clarity that many have sought for decades of conflicted judicial rulings. Seven states have similar rules but this decision is likely to encourage others to follow suit.

Justice Kennedy wrote the main decision, which limited the political-process line of cases represented by Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District. Kennedy stressed that “This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it.” In the view of the majority “[t]here is no authority in the Constitution of the United States or in this court’s precedents for the judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit this policy determination to the voters. . . Democracy does not presume that some subjects are either too divisive or too profound for public debate.”

Justice Scalia wanted to go even further and get rid of much of that jurisprudence. However, this decision is potentially sweeping enough for most of the justices. Chief Justice Roberts and Alito joined Kennedy though Roberts filed a concurring opinion. Thomas joined with Scalia in his concurrence in arguing to go all the way in gutting the political-process line of cases. Justice Breyer concurred in the judgment while Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg dissented. Justice Kagan probably would have joined in that dissent but recused herself. Even with Kagan however the vote would still have been lopsided at 6-3. Instead, it stands at 6-2. That is a sharp departure from the historically razor thin margins in cases like Grutter, Gratz, and others.

Sotomayor wrote a 58 page dissent (longer than all of the other opinions combined) and objected that the Court needed to limit voters because “without checks, democratically approved legislation can oppress minority groups.”

At 58 pages, Sotomayor’s dissent was longer than the combined length of the four opinions in support of the outcome.

In our vote, the Supreme Court seminar voted 11-4 in favor of reversing the Sixth Circuit and 11-4 in predicting that that “other Supreme Court” would also reverse. The United States Supreme Court (while producing multiple opinions) proved less ideologically divided in the outcome than the Sixth Circuit. On the lower court decision upholding the dismissal of the action, the eight judges in the majority were nominees by Democratic presidents while the seven judges in dissent were appointed by Republican presidents.

Here is the opinion.

689 thoughts on “Supreme Court Declares States Can Bar Racial And Other Preferences In University Admissions”

  1. Karen, good point about a rancher’s wish to have motorized vehicles. Does grazing rights authorize the building of fences within federal lands?

    Cattle does a good bit of damage to the land and I thought the BLM had to re-seed in order to renew the grass and keep the water sources viable. No?

    1. There seems to be some question as to what the BLMs actual demands have been and what they can demand. That has been part of the issue in the lawsuits. Granted the Bundys have lost in the lower courts but there is a long way to go.

  5. I scan 500-700 news and blogs a day, not counting keeping up with this one, and read some 50-60 articles a day in their entirety. I am hardly stagnant, as you put it. -Paul

    btw, keebler you owe me a couple of links from yesterday. -Paul, again.

    From a couple of earlier comments.

    Piece. of. work. Truly.

    A little more on “epistemic closure”:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/books/28conserv.html?_r=0

    Thanks for the reminder, Annie.

  6. Karen, I’m afraid we are in complete disagreement about the reliance of various media employees. That’s a list that makes me cringe. But I recognize and support a free press – I just despair at the damage they are doing to our country.

    BTW The Washington Times is pret-ty pret-ty bad. It was founded by the Rev. Moon. The paper carries on his legacy today.

  7. OK Paul, if you say so. Breitbart, Fox, WND, Drudge, no echo chambers, nope they are fair and balanced. That is a fact. 🙄

  9. Bundy’s legal stand with the BLM is different than if he is racist. Those are separate issues. I do not know that the NYT accurately reported what he said, they have been known to shade things from time to time.

  10. Hi feynman:

    I’ve talked about the Bundy issue with my ecologist relatives. I absolutely agree that Bundy has no legal leg to stand on because he stopped paying a very modest grazing fee years ago. They have dealt with ranchers before and know about the issues with generations improving land to steward cattle and then finding themselves at odds with the BLM.

    It’s definitely a different lifestyle. The BLM prohibits motorized vehicles in wilderness areas. So fences have to be maintained on horseback. You’re dependent on BLM access for your livelihood, but sometimes find them opposed to you.

    He had a legitimate complaint, but chose a poor way to express it. You don’t protest your high tax rate by refusing to pay federal taxes.

    All I’ve looked into is the land issue. I don’t know much about Bundy as a person, so don’t know about any racist comments. If he is racist, that is sad and upsetting. It does not affect his contention about the BLM, but it does put his own character in a bad light, if true.

    1. Annie – Drudge is a news aggregator. What is WND? Each division has news and editorial.. You personally are not the culprit but Elaine like to use liberal site. And Media Maters has appeared on occasion. I think we can agree that there are no impartial news sites or we have to go to local sites. I get my best news about the US from British papers because the US papers don’t cover it.

  13. Karen, most of talk radio leans right. I would call that more than adequate representation.

  14. Karen, I hadn’t seen the Fox link before I posted my note @ 11:33. I hope you will understand that I find them a VERY unreliable source and the best that can be said about their reporting is that they are nothing more than op-eds. . But I will read them.

  17. Paul, if you don’t like Dredd’s methods, just ignore them. We who are still interested in learning appreciate his efforts. Go read some of his series on his blog, this Dredd guy is pretty damn smart I think. I’m taking advantage of his knowledge, you Paul can decide to remain stagnant.

  18. @Nick-Brett was ABSOLUTELY a Yankee killer. I don’t “remember” the sweep in 1980 (I was 1), but I have certainly read about it/seen the highlights (shudder).

    Thanks for the tip re Trayvon Martin…Not trying to step on a third-rail here.

  19. That’s ok Dredd, Dibert don’t know land. But an admission that he was incorrect is a start, regardless how it’s stated.

  20. Paul Schulte said, “I try not to watch anything by Stewart,”….

    Over time, people give themselves away, don’t they?

Comments are closed.