U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court rules against affirmative action
The decision allows the U.S. Naval Academy and West Point to continue to use, at least for now, race-conscious admissions programs
By Amy Howe | WASHINGTON – In a historic decision, the Supreme Court severely limited, if not effectively ended, the use of affirmative action in college admissions on Thursday.
By a vote of 6-3, the justices ruled that the admissions programs used by the University of North Carolina and Harvard College violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause, which bars racial discrimination by government entities.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts explained that college admissions programs can consider race merely to allow an applicant to explain how their race influenced their character in a way that would have a concrete effect on the university. But a student “must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual — not on the basis of race,” Roberts wrote. The majority effectively, though not explicitly, overruled its 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, in which the court upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s consideration of race “as one factor among many, in an effort to assemble a student body that is diverse in ways broader than race.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, in an opinion that was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Sotomayor emphasized that the majority’s decision had rolled “back decades of precedent and momentous progress” and “cement[ed] a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society.”
Thursday’s ruling was the latest in a series of challenges to the role of race in university admissions. In both the North Carolina and Harvard cases, the plaintiffs had asked the justices to overrule Grutter. In her opinion for the majority in that case, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor reaffirmed that “student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions,” but she warned that race-conscious admissions policies should not last forever. In 25 years, she suggested, “the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest” in diversity.
Eleven years after the court’s decision in Grutter, a group called Students for Fair Admissions filed the North Carolina and Harvard cases in federal court. The group was founded by Edward Blum, a conservative activist who had also spearheaded a challenge to the admissions policy at the University of Texas at Austin as well as to Shelby County v. Holder, the 2013 case that narrowed the Voting Rights Act.
After the lower courts upheld both North Carolina’s and Harvard’s admissions policies, the Blum’s group came to the Supreme Court, where it asked the justices to overrule their decision in Grutter and bar the consideration of race in university admissions altogether. The court that agreed to take up both cases last year was a very different, and much more conservative, court than the one that had upheld the UT-Austin policy seven years before. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the author of the UT-Austin decision, retired in 2018 and was replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, while Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was succeeded by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
In a 40-page opinion that addressed both the Harvard and UNC cases, Roberts emphasized that the Supreme Court had only allowed universities to use race-based admissions programs “within the confines of narrow restrictions.” But the Harvard and UNC programs, “however well intentioned and implemented in good faith,” Roberts explained, do not comply with those restrictions.
Both programs, Roberts began, consider race as part of their admissions program for commendable goals, such as “training future leaders in the public and private sector” and “promoting the robust exchange of ideas.” But those goals are too vague for courts to measure, Roberts reasoned.
The programs also use race in a “negative” manner, Roberts next explained, despite the Supreme Court’s admonition that “an individual’s race may never be used against him in the admissions process.” Although both universities contend that an applicant’s race is never a negative factor, Roberts wrote, “[c]ollege admissions are zero-sum. A benefit provided to some applicants but not to others necessarily advantages the former group at the expense of the latter.” Moreover, Roberts added, the programs also rely on prohibited racial stereotyping – the idea that minority students will always have the same views or perspectives on a particular issue.
Finally, Roberts observed, the Harvard and UNC programs lacked the “logical end point” suggested by Grutter: Both Harvard and UNC acknowledged that their programs do not have a “sunset” date. Indeed, Roberts noted, “UNC suggests that it might soon use race to a greater extent than it currently does.”
Roberts stressed that the court’s decision did not bar universities from ever considering race on a case-by-case basis. Schools, he indicated, can consider “an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.” But programs like the ones used by Harvard and UNC, he complained, have “concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.”
The majority’s decision left the door open for service academies like the U.S. Naval Academy and West Point to continue to use, at least for now, race-conscious admissions programs. The Biden administration, which filed a brief as a “friend of the court” in support of Harvard and UNC, had emphasized that senior military leaders believe that it is important to have a diverse officer corps, which in turn requires the consideration of race for admission to the service academies. But the service academies did not participate in the Harvard and UNC cases and the lower courts did not consider that argument. Therefore, Roberts indicated in a footnote, the Supreme Court did not weigh in on the issue, “in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present.”
Sotomayor’s 69-page dissent emphasized that the “limited use of race” by colleges and universities “has helped equalize educational opportunities for all students of every race and background and has improved racial diversity on college campuses.” “Although progress has been slow and imperfect,” she wrote, “race-conscious college admissions have advanced the Constitution’s guarantee of equality and have promoted” Brown v. Board of Education’s “vision of a Nation with more inclusive schools.” “The devastating impact of” Thursday’s decision, she concluded, “cannot be overstated.”
Justice Elena Kagan joined Sotomayor’s dissent. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who until last year served on Harvard’s board of overseers, recused herself from the Harvard case and therefore joined Sotomayor’s dissent as it applied to the UNC case. Jackson also filed a dissent in the UNC case, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan, in which she argued that American society “has never been colorblind.” “Given the lengthy history of state-sponsored race-based preferences in America,” Jackson wrote, “to say that anyone is now victimized if a college considered whether that legacy of discrimination has unequally advantaged its applicants fails to acknowledge the well-documented ‘intergenerational transmission of inequality’ that still plagues our citizenry.”
Editor’s Note: In an emailed statement, Imani Rupert-Gordon, the executive director of The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) said:
“We are deeply disappointed that the Supreme Court has once again upended decades of precedent in a decision that will deepen racial inequality in education and cause lasting harm not only to many students of color but to everyone in this country. The majority of Americans support affirmative action because it helps to level an uneven playing field caused by generations of racism and white supremacy. Today’s ruling continues to show just how out of step this Court is with our shared values. We know that when everyone has access to quality higher education, we are all better for it, and today’s ruling is a step in the wrong direction. We will continue to fight against those that seek to bring us back to a time of segregationist educational practice and policy and will not stop until all students – regardless of their race – are able to access the highest quality education in this country. NCLR is committed to working for racial equity in education for all of our communities.”
Shannon Minter, the Legal Director for NCLR in an email to the Blade after the ruling said:
“First as a lawyer in the Reagan and Bush administrations and later as a judge on the DC Circuit and now as a Supreme Court justice, Chief Justice John Roberts has sought to undermine affirmative efforts to remedy the lasting impact of slavery on Black people in our country and our nation’s long history of severe and systemic racial discrimination.
After gutting the Voting Right Act in Shelby County v. Holder, he has now succeeded in getting a majority of justices to support another of his major goals: banning college admission policies that take race into account as a factor, notwithstanding the critical importance of education as a pipeline to full participation in our society.
As the dissenting justices noted, the impact of this decision will be to worsen racial inequality in colleges and universities, which in turn will have a negative impact on all sectors of our society.
This dangerous decision could hardly come at a worse moment, when so many of our democratic norms and institutions are under attack. The only silver lining here is that this opinion is so far out of step with the values of most people in this country that its impact may be diminished by a renewed demand for greater racial inclusivity in higher education, which still may be achieved by many other means not addressed in today’s decision.
It is incumbent on all of us who care about maintaining a multi-racial democracy to do all we can to minimize the harm caused by this tragically misguided opinion.”
The White House released a statement by Vice President Harris on the Supreme Court’s ruling:
“Today’s Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina is a step backward for our nation. It rolls back long-established precedent and will make it more difficult for students from underrepresented backgrounds to have access to opportunities that will help them fulfill their full potential.
It is well established that all students benefit when classrooms and campuses reflect the incredible diversity of our Nation. Colleges and universities provide opportunities for students to interact with Americans from all walks of life and learn from one another. By making our schools less diverse, this ruling will harm the educational experience for all students.
Our Nation’s colleges and universities educate and train the next generation of American leaders. Students who sit in classrooms today will be the leaders of our government, military, private sector, and academic institutions tomorrow. Today’s decision will impact our country for decades to come.
In the wake of this decision, we must work with ever more urgency to make sure that all of our young people have an opportunity to thrive.”
****************************************************************************************
The preceding article was published by SCOTUSBlog and is republished with permission.
Read the ruling here:
U.S. Supreme Court
Concern over marriage equality in US grows two decades after first Mass. same-sex weddings
Gay and lesbian couples began to marry in Bay State in 2004
Two decades after Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage, a new study reveals both significant progress and ongoing challenges for married LGBTQ couples in the U.S., with a growing sense of insecurity about the future of their rights.
The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law surveyed 484 married same-sex couples from all 50 states and D.C. The study, released Monday, marks the 20th anniversary of legal same-sex marriage in the U.S.
Researchers found that 93 percent of respondents cited love as a primary reason for marrying, with 75 percent also mentioning legal protections. Over 83 percent reported positive changes in their sense of security, and 74.6 percent noted improved life satisfaction since marrying.
However, the study also highlighted persistent discrimination and growing concerns about the future. About 11 percent of couples who had a wedding reported facing prejudice during the planning process.
Alarmingly, nearly 80 percent of respondents expressed concern about the potential overturning of the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. This anxiety has been exacerbated by initiatives like Project 2025, a conservative policy blueprint that some fear could roll back LGBTQ rights if implemented.
The possibility of a former President Donald Trump victory in the upcoming election has further intensified these concerns. Many respondents cited Trump’s previous U.S. Supreme Court appointments and his statements on LGBTQ issues as reasons for their apprehension. One participant stated, “The thought of another Trump presidency keeps me up at night. We’ve come so far, but it feels like our rights could be stripped away at any moment.”
The current political climate has 29 percent of respondents considering moving to another state, with 52.9 percent citing socio-political concerns as a primary reason. This reflects a growing sense of insecurity among LGBTQ couples about their rights and freedoms.
Brad Sears, founding executive director of the Williams Institute, noted, “The data clearly show that marriage equality has had a profound positive impact on same-sex couples and their families. However, it also reveals ongoing challenges and serious concerns about the future of these rights in light of current political trends and the upcoming election.”
Christy Mallory, legal director at the Williams Institute and lead author of the study, added, “This research provides crucial insights into the lived experiences of same-sex couples two decades after marriage equality began in the U.S. The high level of concern about potential loss of rights underscores the continued importance of legal protections and public support for LGBTQ+ equality.”
The study found that 30 percent of surveyed couples have children, with 58.1 percent of those parents reporting that marriage provided more stability for their families. However, many of these families now worry about the security of their legal status in the face of potential policy changes and shifting political landscapes.
As the nation reflects on two decades of marriage equality, the study underscores both the transformative power of legal recognition and the ongoing need for vigilance in protecting LGBTQ+ rights. The findings highlight the complex reality faced by same-sex couples in America today: Celebrating hard-won progress while grappling with uncertainty about the future, particularly in light of upcoming political events and potential shifts in leadership.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court to consider challenge to Tenn. law challenging gender-affirming case for minors
Volunteer State lawmakers approved ban in 2023
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to consider a challenge to a Tennessee law that bans health care providers from offering gender-affirming care to transgender minors.
Tennessee lawmakers approved the law in 2023.
A federal judge in Nashville issued a temporary injunction against portions of the statute before it was to have taken effect on July 1, 2023. The 6th U.S. U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last September rejected a request to block the law the Justice Department has also challenged.
“The future of countless transgender youth in this and future generations rests on this court adhering to the facts, the Constitution, and its own modern precedent,” said Chase Strangio, deputy director for transgender justice at the American Civil Liberties Union’s LGBTQ and HIV Project, on Monday in a press release. “These bans represent a dangerous and discriminatory affront to the well-being of transgender youth across the country and their constitutional right to equal protection under the law. They are the result of an openly political effort to wage war on a marginalized group and our most fundamental freedoms.”
“We want transgender people and their families across the country to know we will spare nothing in our defense of you, your loved ones, and your right to decide whether to get this medical care,” added Strangio.
The Associated Press reported Tennessee is among the more than two dozen states that have enacted laws that either restrict or ban gender-affirming care for trans minors.
The ACLU notes the Supreme Court “is not expected to hear arguments” in the case until the fall.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court rules to preserve access to abortion medication
Case is Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a much-anticipated decision against efforts by conservative doctors and medical groups challenging access to mifepristone, one of two pharmaceuticals used in medication abortions. As a result of the high court’s decision, access to the drug won’t change.
Associate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the court, reversed a lower court decision that would have made it more difficult to obtain the drug, which is used in about two-thirds of U.S. abortions. The ruling however was narrow in scope as it only addressed what is known as legal standing in a case.
SCOTUSblog senior court reporter Amy Howe noted that Kavanaugh acknowledged what he characterized as the challengers’ “sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections” to elective abortion “by others” and to FDA’s 2016 and 2021 changes to the conditions on the use of the drug.
But the challengers had not shown that they would be harmed by the FDA’s mifepristone policies, he explained, and under the Constitution, merely objecting to abortion and the FDA’s policies are not enough to bring a case in federal court. The proper place to voice those objections, he suggested, is in the political or regulatory arena.
“Under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff’s desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue,” Kavanaugh wrote.
“We are pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision in this incredibly important case. By rejecting the Fifth Circuit’s radical, unprecedented and unsupportable interpretation of who has standing to sue, the justices reaffirmed longstanding basic principles of administrative law,” said Abigail Long, a spokesperson for Danco. “The decision also safeguards access to a drug that has decades of safe and effective use.”
The White House released a statement from President Joe Biden on Supreme Court Decision on FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine:
“Today’s decision does not change the fact that the fight for reproductive freedom continues. It does not change the fact that the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade two years ago, and women lost a fundamental freedom. It does not change the fact that the right for a woman to get the treatment she needs is imperiled if not impossible in many states.
It does mean that mifepristone, or medication abortion, remains available and approved. Women can continue to access this medication – approved by the FDA as safe and effective more than 20 years ago.
But let’s be clear: attacks on medication abortion are part of Republican elected officials’ extreme and dangerous agenda to ban abortion nationwide. Since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, Republican elected officials have imposed extreme abortion bans in 21 states, some of which include zero exceptions for rape or incest. Women are being turned away from emergency rooms, or forced to go to court to plead for care that their doctor recommended or to travel hundreds of miles for care. Doctors and nurses are being threatened with jail time, including life in prison, for providing the health care they have been trained to provide. And contraception and IVF are under attack.
The stakes could not be higher for women across America. Vice President Harris and I stand with the vast majority of Americans who support a woman’s right to make deeply personal health care decisions. We will continue to fight to ensure that women in every state get the health care they need and we will continue to call on Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade in federal law — that is our commitment.”
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Amarillo, Texas, in a ruling a year ago, waved aside decades of scientific approval, ruled that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration improperly approved mifepristone more than 20 years ago in 2000.
Kacsmaryk, appointed to the federal bench by former President Donald Trump, in his 67 page opinion wrote that the FDA’s two-decade-old approval violated a federal rule that allows for accelerated approval for certain drugs and, along with subsequent actions by the agency, was unlawful.
The suit, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA, was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the North District of Texas in mid-November by Alliance Defending Freedom, an anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ+ legal organization.
Applauding Kacsmaryk’s ruling, Erik Baptist, speaking for the Alliance Defending Freedom said in a statement: “By illegally approving dangerous chemical abortion drugs, the FDA put women and girls in harm’s way, and it’s high time the agency is held accountable for its reckless actions.”
Erin Hawley, a senior attorney for the conservative group Alliance Defending Freedom who argued the case at the Supreme Court, said the opinion was “disappointing,” but told reporters in a press gaggle after the ruling that the explicit mention of conscience protections was a victory.
“The Supreme Court was crystal clear that pro life doctors do have federal conscience protections, even in emergency situations,” Hawley said. “So that’s a huge win for the pro-life cause. The Supreme Court clearly said that our doctors are entitled to those federal conscious protections that are based on their religious beliefs.”
The case now returns to the lower courts, and the dispute over access to the drug likely is not over.
SCOTUSblog also reported that Nancy Northrup, the president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, praised the decision but conceded that the dispute could continue even after Thursday’s ruling. She, too, noted that the three states “could still attempt to keep the case going, including taking it back up to the Supreme Court,” and she warned that access to mifepristone “is still at risk nationwide.”
The Hill notes that for instance, the same district court in Texas that originally ruled against the FDA said a group of three red states—Missouri, Idaho and Kansas— can intervene in the lawsuit.
“I would expect the litigation to continue with those states raising different standing arguments than made by our doctors,” ADF’s Hawley told reporters.
Equality California, the nation’s largest statewide LGBTQ+ civil rights organization, emailed the Blade the following statement from Executive Director Tony Hoang in response to a unanimous ruling by the United States Supreme Court:
“We appreciate today’s unanimous decision to uphold access to the abortion drug mifepristone, authored by a conservative Justice. This ruling reinforces the critical importance of maintaining accessible reproductive healthcare and highlights the necessity of safeguarding these rights from baseless legal attacks.
However, it is imperative to recognize that the Court should never have accepted this case. The so-called Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine lacked the standing to initiate this challenge. Moreover, federal conscience exemptions already exist for healthcare providers who object to offering abortion-related care.
Medication abortions involving mifepristone constitute the majority of abortions in America, including those sought by LGBTQ+ people. Our community understands the necessity of bodily autonomy and the right to make decisions regarding our own medical care, including reproductive care. Patients deserve access to the medications they need, and providers should be able to deliver that care without unwarranted interference from extremist courts or politicians.
Attacks on abortion do not end with this decision; millions of people nationwide are still unable to get abortion care and abortion opponents remain focused on their end goal of a nationwide abortion ban.
Equality California will continue to work with our legislative partners in Sacramento and Washington, D.C., as well as organizational allies, like Planned Parenthood, to help protect and expand access to abortion and reproductive healthcare.”
HRC slams White House over position opposing gender affirming surgeries for minors
Parades, community events held to mark Pride Month in Va.
Concern over marriage equality in US grows two decades after first Mass. same-sex weddings
Out in the World: LGBTQ news from Europe and Asia
Toronto Pride parade cancelled after pro-Palestinian protesters disrupt it
Toronto Pride parade cancelled after pro-Palestinian protesters disrupt it
Stephen Mark Lukas makes sublime turn in ‘Funny Girl’
Despite record crowds, Baltimore Pride’s LGBTQ critics say organizers dropped the ball
Haters troll official Olympics Instagram for celebrating gay athlete and boyfriend
Members of Congress introduce resolution to condemn Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act
-
Canada1 day agoToronto Pride parade cancelled after pro-Palestinian protesters disrupt it
-
Theater4 days agoStephen Mark Lukas makes sublime turn in ‘Funny Girl’
-
Baltimore3 days agoDespite record crowds, Baltimore Pride’s LGBTQ critics say organizers dropped the ball
-
Sports4 days agoHaters troll official Olympics Instagram for celebrating gay athlete and boyfriend