This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-reverses-decision-that-tossed-out-michigans-ban-on-racial-preferences/2014/04/22/44177ad6-9d8f-11e3-9ba6-800d1192d08b_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage
The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court upholds Michigan’s ban on racial preferences in university admissions | Supreme Court upholds Michigan’s ban on racial preferences in university admissions |
| (about 2 hours later) | |
| The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld Michigan’s ban on the use of racial preferences in university admissions, a decision that might encourage other states to adopt similar prohibitions. | The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld Michigan’s ban on the use of racial preferences in university admissions, a decision that might encourage other states to adopt similar prohibitions. |
| By a vote of 6 to 2, the court concluded that it was not up to judges to overturn the decision by Michigan voters to disallow consideration of race when deciding who gets into the state’s universities. California, Florida and the state of Washington have similar prohibitions. | By a vote of 6 to 2, the court concluded that it was not up to judges to overturn the decision by Michigan voters to disallow consideration of race when deciding who gets into the state’s universities. California, Florida and the state of Washington have similar prohibitions. |
| “This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in the court’s controlling opinion. | “This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in the court’s controlling opinion. |
| “There 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.” | “There 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.” |
| Kennedy was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome, but would have gone further to prohibit racial preferences. | Kennedy was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome, but would have gone further to prohibit racial preferences. |
| Justice Stephen G. Breyer also agreed with the judgment, abandoning the liberal wing of the court. | Justice Stephen G. Breyer also agreed with the judgment, abandoning the liberal wing of the court. |
| Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Elena Kagan did not take part in the decision. | Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Elena Kagan did not take part in the decision. |
| Sotomayor, for the first time in her tenure on the court, noted how strongly she disagreed with the decision by reading her dissent from the bench. | Sotomayor, for the first time in her tenure on the court, noted how strongly she disagreed with the decision by reading her dissent from the bench. |
| “Today’s decision eviscerates an important strand of our equal protection jurisprudence,” wrote Sotomayor in her 58-page dissenting opinion. “For members of historically marginalized groups, which rely on the federal courts to protect their constitutional rights, the decision can hardly bolster hope for a vision of democracy that preserves for all the right to participate meaningfully and equally in self-government.” | “Today’s decision eviscerates an important strand of our equal protection jurisprudence,” wrote Sotomayor in her 58-page dissenting opinion. “For members of historically marginalized groups, which rely on the federal courts to protect their constitutional rights, the decision can hardly bolster hope for a vision of democracy that preserves for all the right to participate meaningfully and equally in self-government.” |
| An appeals court had said that a Michigan constitutional amendment banning the use of racial preferences in university admissions, approved by 58 percent of the state’s voters in 2006, had restructured the political process in a way that unfairly targeted minorities. | An appeals court had said that a Michigan constitutional amendment banning the use of racial preferences in university admissions, approved by 58 percent of the state’s voters in 2006, had restructured the political process in a way that unfairly targeted minorities. |
| The Supreme Court decision to uphold the ban was not surprising. At oral arguments, a majority of the justices had been skeptical of the appeals court’s rationale and questioned how requiring the admission process to be color-blind could violate the constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. | |
| Kennedy said the court’s decisions that allow race to be used in limited ways in admission decisions did not dictate that it must be used. | Kennedy said the court’s decisions that allow race to be used in limited ways in admission decisions did not dictate that it must be used. |
| Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette praised the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the appeals court ruling. | |
| “The U.S. Supreme Court made the right call today,” Schuette said. “Our state constitution requires equal treatment in college admissions, because it is fundamentally wrong to treat people differently based on the color of their skin. A majority of Michigan voters embraced the ideal of equal treatment in 2006, and today their decision was affirmed.” | |
| In a sense, the decision does not change what states are allowed to do, and even many conservative states--Texas, for instance--have been adamant that they be allowed to consider race in order to achieve diverse student bodies. | In a sense, the decision does not change what states are allowed to do, and even many conservative states--Texas, for instance--have been adamant that they be allowed to consider race in order to achieve diverse student bodies. |
| But the court’s decision could encourage opponents of affirmative action to press for action, using the decision as an impetus. | But the court’s decision could encourage opponents of affirmative action to press for action, using the decision as an impetus. |
| “The Supreme Court has given voters the green light to eliminate the use of racial preferences in college admissions, which is discouraging for racial diversity,” said Richard D. Kahlenberg, a scholar at the Century Foundation who has advocated for economic diversity in admission decisions. | “The Supreme Court has given voters the green light to eliminate the use of racial preferences in college admissions, which is discouraging for racial diversity,” said Richard D. Kahlenberg, a scholar at the Century Foundation who has advocated for economic diversity in admission decisions. |
| “The good news, however, is that there are alternative ways to achieve diversity that can also deal with economic inequalities.” | “The good news, however, is that there are alternative ways to achieve diversity that can also deal with economic inequalities.” |
| At issue at the Supreme Court was language that says state colleges and universities “shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.” | At issue at the Supreme Court was language that says state colleges and universities “shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.” |
| The amendment was approved by voters after the Supreme Court, in another case from Michigan, in 2003 allowed the limited use of race as part of an “individualized, holistic review of each applicant’s file.” | The amendment was approved by voters after the Supreme Court, in another case from Michigan, in 2003 allowed the limited use of race as part of an “individualized, holistic review of each applicant’s file.” |
| But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, which narrowly tossed out the Michigan amendment, ruled that there was a difference between not using affirmative action and banning it in the state constitution. The latter violates the principle that minorities must be allowed to fully participate in creating laws and that “the majority may not manipulate the channels of change so as to place unique burdens on issues of importance to them,” Judge R. Guy Cole Jr. wrote. | But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, which narrowly tossed out the Michigan amendment, ruled that there was a difference between not using affirmative action and banning it in the state constitution. The latter violates the principle that minorities must be allowed to fully participate in creating laws and that “the majority may not manipulate the channels of change so as to place unique burdens on issues of importance to them,” Judge R. Guy Cole Jr. wrote. |
| His comparison was that while residents of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula may lobby decision-makers to grant preferences to their underrepresented students, minority groups would now have to change the constitution before even having a chance to advocate racial considerations because of the amendment. | His comparison was that while residents of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula may lobby decision-makers to grant preferences to their underrepresented students, minority groups would now have to change the constitution before even having a chance to advocate racial considerations because of the amendment. |
| The case is Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. Kagan gave no reason for her recusal, as is customary, but it was likely because she had worked on the issue while previously serving as the Obama administration’s solicitor general. | The case is Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. Kagan gave no reason for her recusal, as is customary, but it was likely because she had worked on the issue while previously serving as the Obama administration’s solicitor general. |
| Last term, in a case challenging the University of Texas’s use of race in making some admission decisions, the court declined to revise its holding in a previous case. The justices sent the case back to a lower court for a closer look at whether the university had used all the tools at its disposal to increase racial diversity before resorting to considering race in admissions. | Last term, in a case challenging the University of Texas’s use of race in making some admission decisions, the court declined to revise its holding in a previous case. The justices sent the case back to a lower court for a closer look at whether the university had used all the tools at its disposal to increase racial diversity before resorting to considering race in admissions. |