Conservative majority skeptical as Supreme Court hears defense of affirmative action
The justices could end a policy that's shaped college admissions for decades.
The Supreme Court on Monday heard landmark arguments over the use of race in college admissions for nearly five hours, with its six-justice conservative majority leaving the bench apparently poised to rollback a 40-year legacy of affirmative action.
Attorneys for Students for Fair Admissions, the advocacy group challenging race-conscious policies at UNC and Harvard, argued forcefully that "racial classifications" don't have a place in higher education and that the spirit of Brown v. Board of Education, the historic 1954 decision desegregating America's schools, requires race neutrality.
The University of North Carolina and Harvard, separately through their attorneys, sought to convince the court to hold the line, insisting both admissions programs adhere to the Court's precedent allowing narrowly tailored use of race as one factor in a holistic assessment of student applicants.
They repeatedly invoked lower court rulings, derived from fact-intensive district court trials, that found neither institution illegally discriminated on the basis of race. The schools also invoked the history of the 14th Amendment, drafted after the Civil War to extend equal rights to blacks and former slaves, as evidence that race-consciousness is part of our history.
The Biden administration, backing the schools in the cases, called affirmative action a "national security imperative" with significant implications for the country's future military leadership and warned of "destabilizing effects" to corporate America if the policy is abruptly curtailed.
Justices on both sides of the bench seemed to agree that the use of race as a factor in admissions should not continue indefinitely and that the court's prior rulings said as much. They disagreed strongly on how to decide when a transition to race neutrality is warranted and whether the milestone has been met.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman justice, was a prominent voice during the first half of the arguments, repeatedly questioning the harm in considering race as one factor -- a "plus factor" -- among many in building a diverse student body. She also suggested that telling schools they cannot consider an applicants race could be a reverse violation of the Equal Protection clause.
Justice Clarence Thomas, the only conservative justice of color and second Black justice in U.S. history, cast doubt on the claimed measurable educational benefits from diversity on campus and appeared eager to overturn a series of precedents he's found egregiously wrong from the start.
There was much debate about the viability of race-neutral alternatives to assembling a diverse campus student body -- proposals that included an emphasis on socio-economic status over race, or the removal of "check boxes" while allowing applicants to raise race in an essay on their own.
In the end, many of the conservatives appeared convinced that the court's affirmative action precedent -- in practice -- was disadvantaging some students at the expense of others, purely on the basis of race -- even if quotas are not explicitly involved. That sort of favoritism has long ruffled Chief Justice John Roberts, among others, and their discomfort with the approach was on full display.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the justice who has voted most in the majority of any justice in the last two terms, could be an important factor in the scope of a final decision. He appeared laser focused on crafting a definition for "race-neutral" that would be workable and fair, asking several times about whether a school could give a plus factor for descendants of slaves.
The court's decision is due out next year.
Here is how the oral arguments developed:
- Court adjourns after nearly 5 hours
- Solicitor General warns of 'destabilization' if affirmative action goes
- Roberts grills Harvard attorney: 'We did not fight a civil war about oboe players'
- Conservative justices press Harvard on treatment of Jews, Asians
- Attorney for Harvard says challenger group not 'entitled to its own facts'
College students, activists gather outside Supreme Court
College students and civil rights leaders have been gathering outside the Supreme Court as justices hear two cases challenging affirmative action.
As Asian American college students, Tony Ruan and Resty Fufunan of Yale College believe it’s important to support affirmative action because diversity is needed in our schools and communities.
Fufunan said today is important for education because it’s intimately tied to social-economic outcomes, social mobility and breaking out of poverty.
But Taiwanese American Ada Chiu Carliucci, mother of two, flew in yesterday from Wellington, Florida, in hopes of getting inside the court to see affirmative action rolled back.
She called Harvard’s admissions process, especially their personality assessments, discrimination.
Carliucci also said the assessments made an entire race undesirable and she is worried for her two kids, who are half-Asian and half-white, who have worked hard to get good grades their whole lives.
Earlier, George Mason NAACP President, senior Alaina Ruffin from Herndon, said overturning affirmative action would be a massive step back and a roll back of the civil rights that so many fought and died for.
Devin Freeman, the political action chair of the NAACP’s youth and college division, then described overturning precedent as an atrocity. He said reversing affirmative action will affect diversity and if the Supreme Court overturns precedent, it will take away civil liberties.
- ABC News’ Arthur Jones
Arguments begin in Harvard case
The justices are now hearing Students for Fair Admissions' challenge to race-conscious admission policies at Harvard University, the nation's oldest private college.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School who also served as member of the Harvard Board of Overseers, is not participating in the oral argument. During her confirmation hearings earlier this year, Jackson said she would recuse herself from the case.
In this case, SFFA claims Harvard discriminates against Asian applicants through subjective personal ratings.
Cameron Norris, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, began his arguments by telling justices: "What Harvard is doing to Asians, like what it was doing to Jews in the 1920s, is shameful."
Arguments conclude in UNC case after nearly 3 hours
The Supreme Court participated in an extraordinary and historic debate on Monday morning during arguments on affirmative action.
The court's conservative majority has made clear that it is poised to sharply curtail the use of race in college admissions at public universities, suggesting the court's precedents always envisioned a time limit on the practice, casting doubt on the educational benefits, and seeing a danger in disadvantaging some students simply because of the color of their skin.
The court's liberals have mounted a vigorous, if at times uncoordinated, defense of the law, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson repeatedly questioning the harm in a school considering race as a "plus" factor in a holistic assessment of a student and worrying aloud about a reverse equal protection violation in telling minorities that their race cannot matter.
The justices will next hear the case challenging the race-conscious admissions policy at Harvard University.
’What would an originalist think about this?’
Justice Elena Kagan posed this question to Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar seeking to pique the interest of her conservative colleagues and adherents to the philosophy of constitutional interpretation.
Prelogar replied that at the time of enactment of the 14th Amendment "there were federal and state laws that premised on bringing African Americans into full equality."
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a self-avowed originalist, later conceded the point but suggested their purpose was limited.
"I entirely agree with you that it’s not always illegal to take race-conscious remedial measures," Barrett said ."It’s not accurate to say, when you look at the original evidence, that it was always colorblind… So the question is under what circumstances have those remedial measures been permitted?"
"Petitioner has not been able to point to any history that racial classifications were automatically and invariably unconstitutional," Prelogar said later.