SCOTUS will revisit case that could kill affirmative action

SCOTUS will revisit case that could kill affirmative action

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to revisit the case of a Texas woman who claims affirmative action prevented her from attending the University of Texas. The move means race-based affirmative action is once again in danger of being abolished at public institutions.

The case, Fisher v. Texas, concerns the troubles of Abigail Fisher, who applied to the University of Texas at Austin in 2008 and was rejected. Currently, UT-Austin automatically grants admission to the top 10% of every high school class, while doling out its remaining admissions based on a “holistic process” that evaluates grades, extracurriculars, and other factors (including race). Fisher claims that lower-quality applicants were admitted to the school on the basis of their race, illegally violating the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.

The case was first heard by the Supreme Court in 2013, and many thought the justices would gut affirmative action then. Instead, the Court issued a narrower 7-1 ruling that ordered lower courts to apply a higher degree of scrutiny in determining whether Texas’ affirmative action program was constitutional.

The ruling sent the case back to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which once again ruled against Fisher despite the heightened level of scrutiny. Now, Fisher has appealed back to the Supreme Court, and will have her case heard again.

The current governing Supreme Court precedent, the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger case, holds that public colleges may engage in affirmative action in order to achieve the state’s interest in a diverse student body. However, such policies must be limited in scope. Many expect the Court to roll back that decision, however. The decision’s author, Sandra Day O’Connor, has been replaced by the more conservative Justice Samuel Alito, while current Court swing justice Anthony Kennedy was a dissenter to that decision, arguing that direct racial affirmative action was likely unconstitutional.

The Court’s liberal wing will have an even harder time defending affirmative action, as Justice Elena Kagan will have to recuse herself from the case due to her prior involvement with it as President Obama’s solicitor general.

This report, by Blake Neff, was cross-posted by arrangement with the Daily Caller News Foundation.

LU Staff

LU Staff

Promoting and defending liberty, as defined by the nation’s founders, requires both facts and philosophical thought, transcending all elements of our culture, from partisan politics to social issues, the workings of government, and entertainment and off-duty interests. Liberty Unyielding is committed to bringing together voices that will fuel the flame of liberty, with a dialogue that is lively and informative.


Commenting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

You may use HTML in your comments. Feel free to review the full list of allowed HTML here.