Supreme Court’s Affirmative Action Ruling Marks the Beginning of a New Chapter in American Race Struggles: The recent Supreme Court decision invalidating affirmative action programs at Harvard and UNC-Chapel Hill has been viewed as the culmination of a long journey. However, it signifies more than just the end of a conservative legal project that began in the 1980s. This pivotal ruling, led by a Republican-appointed majority, could potentially shape the future direction of the law and have far-reaching consequences on American race-related issues. In this article, we will explore two significant ways in which this decision could mark the beginning, rather than the conclusion, of a new chapter for the Supreme Court and its impact on American society.
The Implications of the Supreme Court’s Decision
Since the Reagan administration, the court’s conservative majority has been steadily eroding the legality of using race to allocate state benefits. With Justice John Roberts, who previously expressed strong opposition to state affirmative action measures, leading the charge, the court’s composition has played a critical role in shifting the boundaries of what is considered constitutional. The recent ruling, which deems race-based college admissions unconstitutional, serves as a powerful weapon that could be employed to undermine further efforts by the government and companies to address the specific harms faced by racial and ethnic minorities.
Threats to Disparate Impact Rules
One significant consequence of the Supreme Court’s decision is the potential invalidation of “disparate impact” rules. Disparate impact laws allow plaintiffs to demonstrate discrimination by highlighting large and unexplained racial disparities, even when discriminatory motives are not overt. Conservative justices have long been critical of these laws, and the recent ruling against race-based college admissions provides them with additional leverage. Disregarding disparate impact provisions in state and federal law would create a less favorable legal landscape for individuals who face discrimination from those who hide their discriminatory motives. Paradoxically, this push for race-blindness could enable others to discriminate more easily, contradicting Justice Roberts’ assertion that the way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to cease racial discrimination altogether.
Destabilizing Consequences and Challenges to Existing Laws
Another potential consequence of the Supreme Court’s ruling is the disruption of existing laws and regulations aimed at addressing racial disparities. For instance, challenges to admissions processes, like the ongoing case involving the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, could extend beyond explicitly race-conscious rules to include actions taken to mitigate specific racial harms. A ruling that essentially rejects the pursuit of racial justice would cast doubt on numerous state and federal statutes enacted to alleviate the burdens faced by minority groups. This could impact laws protecting minority voters and hinder the government’s ability to respond to alarming racial disparities, such as the higher rates of maternal mortality among Black women.
The Court’s Alignment with Partisan Interests
Contrary to the traditional notion that the Supreme Court follows broad majoritarian views, its recent trajectory suggests a closer alignment with the preferences of the Republican Party. The court’s potential targeting of race-conscious policies as unconstitutional could serve partisan interests by undermining measures like state voting rights acts, which are generally disfavored by Republicans. Furthermore, the court’s actions could provide a legal framework for labeling policies associated with social justice as “unconstitutional” or “discriminatory,” thereby restricting Democrats from advancing the interests of their electoral coalition. This development could spark a new wave of political warfare centered on race-related issues.
While the Supreme Court‘s decision on affirmative action appears to be a final act in a conservative legal project, its implications reach far beyond. The ruling sets the stage for potential challenges to disparate impact rules and creates the possibility of destabilizing existing laws that aim to address racial disparities. Furthermore, the court’s alignment with partisan interests may open the door to a new kind of political warfare that could dominate state and national agendas. As we navigate this new chapter in American race struggles, it becomes crucial to remain vigilant about the potential consequences and the impact on marginalized communities.