As the term winds down, the Supreme Court has essentially gutted the use of race as a factor in college admissions with a pair of rulings that upends decades of affirmative action programs.
The rulings broke along ideological lines — six conservative justices in favor and the three liberal justices against (except on one of the two cases when Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had to recuse herself because of her ties to Harvard).
The cases specifically dealt with Harvard University and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's race-driven admissions programs, ruling they do not comply with the 14th Amendment's equal protection guarantee.
"Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. "We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today."
"At the same time, as all parties agree, nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant's discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise," he continued.
The Supreme Court had upheld affirmative action, or policies that colleges have used to favor applicants based on past discrimination, which has tended to favor Black and Hispanic students. Universities have relied on the effort to more broadly diversify their student populations.
More from The Hill here.
But, but, but: Justice Sonia Sotomayor blasted the majority's ruling in a biting dissent, suggesting that it "rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress." (The Hill)
READ: The full court order can be found here.
IN OTHER COURT NEWS:
The court ruled unanimously in favor of a Pennsylvania postal worker who argued he risked being fired if he didn't deliver Amazon packages on Sundays, despite its negative impact on his ability to observe his Christian religious beliefs and practices.
The High Court ruled decades ago that employers had to "reasonably accommodate" employees on religion but it shouldn't put an "undue hardship" on the business.
The new Supreme Court determined that a lower court was too quick to dismiss the case and should take another look at it and the precedent it would set.
"We think it is enough to say that an employer must show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the court opinion. (The Hill)
WHAT'S NEXT?:
The court still has two major cases left, and the clock is ticking on this term. Rulings are expected Friday, unless the court punts to another week.
Student loan forgiveness: The court is set to decide whether President Biden's federal student loan forgiveness program that would wipe out debt for millions of Americans should go forward.
The administration announced the $400 billion plan in September, but it met pushback from some conservative critics, who argued that Biden overstepped his authority and that the plan is discriminatory.
Gay rights redux: The court also took up the case of a Christian graphic artist who doesn't want to make wedding websites for same-sex couples, even though Colorado state law requires that businesses open to the public provide services without discrimination.
The web designer, Lorie Smith, has argued that the law violates her religious rights. Opponents argue that a ruling in her favor would open the floodgates for discrimination based on other factors, such as race, gender and religion.
No comments:
Post a Comment