Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action

Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action is a landmark Supreme Court of the United States case that dealt with the issue of affirmative action in public university admissions, involving University of Michigan and Michigan State University. The case was brought by Bill Schuette, the Attorney General of Michigan, against the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, which included organizations such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the American Civil Liberties Union. The case was closely watched by Harvard University, Stanford University, and University of California, Berkeley, among other institutions.

Background

The case originated from a Michigan ballot initiative, Proposal 2, which was approved by voters in 2006 and amended the Michigan Constitution to prohibit affirmative action policies in public university admissions, as well as in government contracting and employment. The Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action challenged the constitutionality of Proposal 2 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, arguing that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case was heard by Judge Susan Dlott and later appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which included Judge Helene White, Judge R. Guy Cole Jr., and Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey. The Sixth Circuit ruled in favor of the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, finding that Proposal 2 did indeed violate the Equal Protection Clause. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which granted certiorari and heard oral arguments from Solicitor General of the United States Donald Verrilli Jr. and Shanta Driver, among others.

Supreme Court decision

The Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision on April 22, 2014, in a 6-2 ruling, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel Alito, and Justice Stephen Breyer in part. The majority held that the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit states from banning affirmative action policies in public university admissions, as long as the ban is enacted through a democratic process, such as a ballot initiative. The decision was seen as a significant victory for conservative groups, including the National Association of Scholars and the Center for Equal Opportunity, which had filed amicus briefs in support of Bill Schuette. In contrast, liberal groups, such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, expressed disappointment with the decision, which they argued would harm diversity and inclusion efforts at public universities, including University of California, Los Angeles and New York University.

Opinions of the Court

The majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, emphasized the importance of allowing states to make their own decisions about affirmative action policies, as long as those decisions are made through a democratic process. Justice Kennedy noted that the Equal Protection Clause is not a "one-way ratchet" that only allows for the expansion of affirmative action policies, but rather a guarantee that all individuals are treated equally under the law. In a concurring opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia argued that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was intended to prohibit all forms of racial discrimination, including affirmative action policies. Justice Clarence Thomas also wrote a concurring opinion, in which he argued that affirmative action policies are inherently discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional. In contrast, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion, in which she argued that the majority's decision would harm diversity and inclusion efforts at public universities, including University of Texas at Austin and Georgia Institute of Technology. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Justice Sotomayor's dissent, as did Justice Stephen Breyer in part.

Analysis and commentary

The decision in the case was widely analyzed and commented upon by legal scholars, civil rights activists, and politicians. Many conservative commentators, including National Review and The Wall Street Journal, praised the decision as a victory for equal protection and merit-based admissions. In contrast, liberal commentators, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, criticized the decision as a setback for diversity and inclusion efforts at public universities, including University of Wisconsin–Madison and University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Law professors, such as Erwin Chemerinsky of University of California, Irvine School of Law and Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School, also weighed in on the decision, with some arguing that it would have significant implications for civil rights law and education policy. The decision was also discussed by politicians, including President Barack Obama and Senator Elizabeth Warren, who expressed concerns about the impact of the decision on diversity and inclusion efforts at public universities, including Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Carnegie Mellon University.

Subsequent developments

The decision in the case has had significant implications for affirmative action policies at public universities across the United States. In the aftermath of the decision, several states, including California and Florida, have considered banning affirmative action policies in public university admissions. The decision has also sparked a renewed debate about the role of affirmative action in promoting diversity and inclusion at public universities, including University of Michigan and University of Texas at Austin. Civil rights groups, including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the American Civil Liberties Union, have continued to advocate for affirmative action policies, while conservative groups, including the National Association of Scholars and the Center for Equal Opportunity, have pushed for their elimination. The decision has also been cited in other Supreme Court of the United States cases, including Fisher v. University of Texas and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard University, which have further shaped the landscape of affirmative action law in the United States. Category:United States Supreme Court cases