April 23, 2014

Supreme Court Affirms Michigan’s Action

In a convoluted ruling, the Court effectively backs Michigan voters’ right to decide.

In a decisive victory for voters and, by extension, a victory for true equal rights and equality of opportunity, the Supreme Court yesterday upheld a Michigan ban on using race-based criteria in college admissions. Article 1 Section 26 of the Michigan constitution states: “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” By a 6-2 vote, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissenting and Justice Elena Kagan recusing herself, the Court reversed a lower court’s ruling that the ban – a constitutional amendment enacted in 2006 through referendum with the support of 58% of Michigan voters – placed a burden on minorities.

The case and the varying written opinions were complicated. As The Wall Street Journal sums up, “[T]he majority arrived at this destination via three opinions that offered different legal explanations and won’t provide much clarity on race and the law going forward.” In fact, previous Court muddling prompted the passage of Michigan’s ban, and the current ruling did little to clarify things.

The core issue the Court actually decided was the validity of a voter-supported state law, not the constitutionality of racial preferences. As Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion, “The question here concerns not the permissibility of race-conscious admissions policies under the Constitution but whether, and in what manner, voters in the states may choose to prohibit the consideration of racial preferences in governmental decisions, in particular with respect to school admissions.” And in a win for the democratic process over judicial fiat, Kennedy refused to concede that the issue at hand was “too sensitive or complex to be within the grasp of the [Michigan] electorate.” He further wrote that the Michigan law does not inflict any hurt or injury on racial minorities, but also that “[t]his case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it. Democracy does not presume that some subjects are either too divisive or too profound for public debate.”

Nevertheless, Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s scathing dissent attempted to frame the issue not as one of constitutional jurisdiction but as one of racial tensions. She wrote, “For members of historically marginalized groups, which rely on the federal courts to protect their constitutional rights, the decision can hardly bolster hope for a vision of democracy that preserves for all the right to participate meaningfully and equally in self-government.” Furthermore, she claimed that Michigan voters had “changed the rules in the middle of the game” and added that “it is clear that race-neutral alternatives are not adequate to achieve diversity.” She said her colleagues can’t “wish away” racial inequality.

Unfortunately, Sotomayor’s argument doesn’t fit the question, as the case at hand had nothing to do with equal participation in self-government but everything to do with voters legally prohibiting preferential treatment based solely on color of skin. Sotomayor has clearly bought into the Left’s racial grievance campaign, and doesn’t seem to be able to see beyond her own race.

Furthermore, and ironically, if anything has changed the rules midstream, it’s the shift from “equality of opportunity” as the goal to “diversity” and “equality of outcome.” Indeed, where outcome is the measurement of whether laws are just, the rules will never be static. If Congress had race quotas for Members, for example, elections would be meaningless.

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has considered a case involving affirmative action in higher education – and it likely won’t be the last. Less than a year ago, SCOTUS avoided issuing a decisive ruling in the case of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, instead punting the issue back to the lower courts. While yesterday’s decision respected both the will of voters and the principle of equal opportunity for all, it’s safe to say that this issue has not seen its last legal battleground.

As an aside, what are the implications now for other state votes like California’s Proposition 8?

In conclusion, we refer back to Chief Justice John Roberts’ famous words in a 2007 case involving race preferences: “[T]he way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” What a novel idea.

Who We Are

The Patriot Post is a highly acclaimed weekday digest of news analysis, policy and opinion written from the heartland — as opposed to the MSM’s ubiquitous Beltway echo chambers — for grassroots leaders nationwide. More

What We Offer

On the Web

We provide solid conservative perspective on the most important issues, including analysis, opinion columns, headline summaries, memes, cartoons and much more.

Via Email

Choose our full-length Digest or our quick-reading Snapshot for a summary of important news. We also offer Cartoons & Memes on Monday and Alexander’s column on Wednesday.

Our Mission

The Patriot Post is steadfast in our mission to extend the endowment of Liberty to the next generation by advocating for individual rights and responsibilities, supporting the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and promoting free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. We are a rock-solid conservative touchstone for the expanding ranks of grassroots Americans Patriots from all walks of life. Our mission and operation budgets are not financed by any political or special interest groups, and to protect our editorial integrity, we accept no advertising. We are sustained solely by you. Please support The Patriot Fund today!


The Patriot Post and Patriot Foundation Trust, in keeping with our Military Mission of Service to our uniformed service members and veterans, are proud to support and promote the National Medal of Honor Heritage Center, the Congressional Medal of Honor Society, both the Honoring the Sacrifice and Warrior Freedom Service Dogs aiding wounded veterans, the National Veterans Entrepreneurship Program, the Folds of Honor outreach, and Officer Christian Fellowship, the Air University Foundation, and Naval War College Foundation, and the Naval Aviation Museum Foundation. "Greater love has no one than this, to lay down one's life for his friends." (John 15:13)

★ PUBLIUS ★

“Our cause is noble; it is the cause of mankind!” —George Washington

Please join us in prayer for our nation — that righteous leaders would rise and prevail and we would be united as Americans. Pray also for the protection of our Military Patriots, Veterans, First Responders, and their families. Please lift up your Patriot team and our mission to support and defend our Republic's Founding Principle of Liberty, that the fires of freedom would be ignited in the hearts and minds of our countrymen.

The Patriot Post is protected speech, as enumerated in the First Amendment and enforced by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, in accordance with the endowed and unalienable Rights of All Mankind.

Copyright © 2024 The Patriot Post. All Rights Reserved.

The Patriot Post does not support Internet Explorer. We recommend installing the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Mozilla Firefox, or Google Chrome.