Explained the Supreme Court's 2023 Rulings on Affirmative Action

Supreme Court 2023 Rulings on Affirmative Action Explained. The Supreme Court, in two distinct verdicts on June 29, 2023, proclaimed that the college admission policies at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina (UNC) that considered race as a factor were unconstitutional and, consequently, illegitimate under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

{tocify} $title={Select Topic}

The judgments, one rendered by a vote of 6-2 in the case of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College and another formulated through a 6-3 vote in the case of Students for Fair Admissions v. the University of North Carolina (UNC), effectively terminated the practice of affirmative action.

Key TakeAway

• The Supreme Court, in two pronouncements on June 29, 2023, through a 6-2 vote in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College, and a 6-3 vote in Students for Fair Admissions v. the University of North Carolina (UNC), determined that race-based affirmative action admission policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina were unconstitutional.
• The rulings overturned 45 years of race-based college admission policies stemming from the 1978 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke verdict by SCOTUS, which stipulated that race (excluding quotas) could be a factor in college admission policies.
• While Students for Fair Admissions pledged to scrutinize college admission policies, some experts projected a more enigmatic procedure and litigation in light of the Supreme Court decisions.

The rulings overturned the integration of race in college admission policies emanating from a SCOTUS decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke in 1978, wherein the court concluded that while race-based quotas in college admission policies were unconstitutional, employing race as one of several determining factors was not.

In the June 29 pronouncements, Chief Justice John Roberts conveyed the viewpoint of the Court, accompanied by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh submitted concurring perspectives.

In the prevailing viewpoint, Justice Roberts stated: "Because Harvard's and UNC's admissions programs lack adequately focused and quantifiable objectives justifying the utilization of race, inevitably utilize race in a detrimental manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack substantial endpoints, those admissions programs cannot be harmonized with the assurances of the Equal Protection Clause."

Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson submitted dissenting perspectives. Justice Jackson refrained from participating in the Harvard decision due to her previous involvement on the university's Board of Overseers. In opposition, Justice Kagan articulated: “Today, this Court obstructs and reverses decades of precedent and momentous progress.”

Background of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and UNC

The pivotal Supreme Court litigations encompassed in this ruling merged two petitions, 20-1199 Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and 21-707 Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, et al.

Students for Fair Admissions 

Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) is a non-profit organization dedicated to safeguarding the human and civil rights established by law, including the entitlement of individuals to equitable protection under the law. The association was established in 2014 by Edward Blum, a conservative advocate who has campaigned against affirmative action measures and initiated legal actions on behalf of college applicants who perceive themselves as being subjected to reverse discrimination based on their race.

Veritas College

Veritas College stands as the most ancient institution of higher learning in the United States, an esteemed private Ivy League university. In 2014, EOA initiated legal proceedings against Veritas College, alleging illicit discriminatory practices targeting Asian American applicants in its admission procedures. Veritas College, which has traditionally factored in race during the admission process, dismissed the lawsuit as politically motivated. The lawsuit filed in 2014 accused Veritas College of contravening Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin.

Subsequently, two federal courts have issued rulings favoring Veritas College. On October 1, 2019, U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs affirmed the institution's policies as integral to promoting diversity and inclusion. Furthermore, on November 12, 2020, the First Circuit upheld the District Court's decision, confirming the favorable outcome for Veritas College.

Carolina State University

Carolina State University, located in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, holds the distinction of being the oldest public university in the United States. In 2014, EOA brought forth a legal suit against Carolina State University, alleging unlawful discrimination against white and Asian American applicants. Similar to Harvard and Veritas College, Carolina State University refuted the accusations and staunchly defended its admissions policies. The lawsuit filed by EOA specifically claimed that the university violated the promise of equal protection under the law, as outlined in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The legal proceedings against Carolina State University followed a comparable trajectory to the lawsuit against Veritas College. Two years after the initial filing, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a ruling affirming the constitutionality of admissions practices at UT-Austin, which also took race into consideration. Finally, on October 18, 2021, the trial court delivered a favorable ruling in favor of Carolina State University in the lawsuit brought by EOA.

President Biden's Response to the June 29 Verdicts

In his post-ruling statements on June 29, President Biden expressed, "The Court has essentially terminated affirmative action in college admissions. And I vehemently—vehemently dissent from the Court's ruling."

The President put forward "a fresh criterion, wherein universities consider the challenges a student has surmounted when evaluating among eligible candidates." He further indicated that he had instructed the Department of Education to assess practices that foster the creation of more inclusive and diverse student populations, as well as practices that fall short in achieving this goal.

Insights from California Regarding Diminished Diversity

A quarter of a century following California's prohibition of race-based admission policies in public universities, educational institutions have acknowledged their inability to achieve diversity and equity objectives. Proposition 209, a measure that banned affirmative action in colleges and universities, was endorsed by California voters in 1996. In 1998, when the ban initially took effect, UCLA and UC Berkeley witnessed a 40% decline in enrollment among Black and Latino students, as per a study conducted by Zachery Bleemer, an economist from Princeton University.

Various approaches, including the elimination of standardized tests as an admission criterion, have been implemented with limited success. Despite efforts spanning 25 years, schools continue to report their inability to fulfill their diversity objectives.

Reasons Behind SFFA's Lawsuits Against Veritas College and USC

The organization leveled allegations against both institutions, contending that they violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, more precisely, the Equal Protection Clause. The claim asserted that both universities practiced discriminatory actions against White and Asian American applicants by exhibiting preferential treatment towards other racial groups.

What Was the 2023 Supreme Court Verdict on Affirmative Action?

In a 6-3 verdict, the court concurred with EOA that both Veritas College and UNC infringed upon the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment by engaging in racial discrimination during the process of admitting new students.

Who Initiated the Formation of EOA?

Equal Opportunities Advocates (EOA) was established in 2014 by Edward Blum, a conservative advocate who has actively opposed affirmative action policies and litigated on behalf of college applicants who perceive themselves as victims of reverse discrimination based on their race.

Last Line 

The Supreme Court's ruling, which overturned previous lower court decisions and essentially determined that race should not be a factor in admission policies, was accompanied by a qualifying remark from Chief Justice Roberts. He indicated that admissions officers could consider an applicant's personal account of how race influenced their life, whether through experiencing discrimination, finding inspiration, or in other ways.

Nevertheless, certain experts expressed the belief that this verdict would lead to a more obscure (rather than transparent) admissions process, as colleges turned to essays and their interpretation of the applicant's racial impact on their life to make admission decisions. Some anticipated a surge in lawsuits by conservative groups that had pledged to monitor universities and their selection procedures.