Detailed Study Notes on Supreme Court Case: Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and UNC

Supreme Court Case Overview

  • Case Names:

    • Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College

    • Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, Et Al.

  • Date Issued: June 29, 2023

  • Judges Involved: Justice Thomas concurring; dissenting opinions from Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

Justice Thomas's Concurring Opinion

  1. Historical Context and Amendments

    • Emphasizes the historical significance of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments post-Civil War.

      • Thirteenth Amendment: Abolishes slavery.

      • Fourteenth Amendment: Grants citizenship and equal protection under the law to all persons born in the U.S.

    • Asserts that the Constitution is color-blind, referencing Justice Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson.

  2. Evolution of Court’s Stance on Equality

    • Discusses the fluctuating commitment to equality by the Supreme Court over time.

    • Highlights landmark cases affecting racial equality:

      • Brown v. Board of Education (1954): Ordered desegregation of schools.

      • Grutter v. Bollinger (2003): Allowed race-based discrimination for diversity in university admissions temporarily.

      • Indicates his disagreement with Grutter and his belief that it should be overruled.

  3. Argument for a Colorblind Constitution

    • Argues that discrimination based on race, even through affirmative action, is a violation of the Constitution.

    • Explains that two wrongs (discrimination) cannot make a right.

  4. Analysis of Current Admissions Policies

    • Critiques the race-conscious admissions policies of Harvard and UNC for failing strict scrutiny.

    • Concludes that genuine strict scrutiny must be applied to all discrimination cases.

  5. Historical Legislative Intent

    • Details the legislative history of the Civil Rights Acts, emphasizing that laws enacted were to ensure equality without discrimination, particularly racial.

    • Civil Rights Act of 1866: Declared all persons born in the U.S. as citizens, thereby forbidding legal distinctions based on race.

  6. Discussion of Subsequent Laws and Amendments

    • Addresses proposals for constitutional amendments and legislation aimed at securing civil rights and the equality of individuals regardless of race.

Justice Jackson's Dissenting Opinion

  1. Acknowledgment of Racial Inequality

    • Opens with recognition of existing race-based disparities in w ealth,health, and well-being in American society.

    • Critiques the majority ruling for not acknowledging this ongoing inequality and for undermining holistic admissions processes.

  2. Case Study of Applicants

    • Illustrates the situation of two applicants (John and James) to highlight systemic inequities affecting Black Americans:

      • John represents historical privilege; James, the legacy of discrimination.

    • Argues that ignoring race in admissions overlooks the context of historical disparities.

  3. Historical Context of Discrimination

    • Explains how historical injustices, such as slavery and Jim Crow laws, continue to shape the experiences and opportunities of Black individuals today.

    • References previous Supreme Court rulings and legislative actions that resulted in racial inequalities.

  4. Defense of Holistic Admissions

    • Defends UNC's holistic admissions process as a more equitable approach that allows consideration of racial background as one of many factors in evaluating an applicant.

    • Emphasizes that it aims for fairness in light of historical disparities while recognizing individual achievements and hardships.

  5. Consequences of Colorblind Policies

    • Warns that colorblind policies will only exacerbate existing inequalities and delay genuine equality.

    • Argues that such approaches will hinder the progress necessary to address historical and structural disadvantages.

  6. Call to Action

    • Advocates for universities to embrace and address the complexities of race in admissions to further the goal of true equality.

    • Claims that failure to do so will hinder progress and leave descendants of historically marginalized groups without the opportunities necessary for success in a modern society.

  • Conclusion:

    • Justice Thomas advocates for a strict adherence to a colorblind Constitution, while Justice Jackson emphasizes the importance of context in admissions processes that recognize the impact of historical racism on current applicants.