US Supreme Court’s recent decision invalidating Harvard and UNC-Chapel Hill’s affirmative action programs marks the end of a long road and potentially opens a new chapter in American struggles over race. This means that the US Supreme Court’s Affirmative Action decision could be the beginning of a new chapter.
The court’s Republican-appointed majority has been gradually undermining the legality of using race to allocate state benefits since the Reagan administration.
Chief Justice John Roberts, a young lawyer in Reagan’s White House, strongly opposed state affirmative action measures and now the changing composition of the court has made them “unconstitutional.”
The decision to end affirmative action may have two important implications.
US Supreme Court in moving affirmative action Law in a Conservative Direction
The first potential consequence of the decision is a shift in the law towards a more conservative direction.
The ruling against race-based college admissions adds a powerful weapon to conservative justices’ opposition to disparate impact rules.
Disparate impact laws allow plaintiffs to prove discrimination by pointing to unexplained racial disparities.
Invalidating disparate impact rules would make the law less favorable for those facing discrimination and potentially enable discrimination based on race.
This aligns with Chief Justice Roberts‘ adage that “the way to stop discriminating based on race is to stop discriminating based on race.”
Disruptive Consequences and Challenges to Statutes
The second potential consequence is the disruption caused by challenging statutes enacted to address racial disparities and promote racial justice.
If the court rejects “racial justice” as a basis for government action, it could cast doubt on many state and federal statutes aimed at alleviating burdens on minority groups.
Examples include protections for minority voters and efforts to address racial disparities such as the racial gap in maternal mortality.
A ruling against racial justice could hinder government response to pressing policy problems affecting racial minorities.
Arbitrary Cabining and Whim of the Justices
The court could limit its rule by selectively applying the concept of “integrative intent” to eliminate race-based barriers in social and economic life.
However, this approach would subject state efforts to address racially concentrated harms to the justices’ discretion, which is not an ideal scenario.
The Court’s Alignment with Partisan Interests
The Supreme Court’s recent decisions align more closely with the preferences of the Republican Party rather than broadly majoritarian views.
Destabilizing laws promoting equality serve partisan interests by targeting measures like state voting rights acts.
The court’s actions against race-conscious policies provide a legal framework for labeling policies as “woke” and potentially invalidating them.
This creates an incentive for partisan figures to label policies they oppose as discriminatory and unconstitutional, hindering Democrats from advancing the interests of minority groups in their electoral coalition.
Opening the Gate to Political Warfare
The affirmative action decision may lead to a new kind of political warfare dominating state and national agendas.
Labeling policies as “woke” becomes equivalent to labeling them as “unconstitutional,” restricting the Democrats’ ability to support policies that favor minorities.
[…] followed the Supreme Court‘s overturning of nationwide protections the previous […]