Bollinger, which held that institutions of higher education may use race as a factor in admissions. Students for Fair Admissions asked the Court to overturn a 2003 ruling in Grutter v. The cases implicitly and explicitly call on the Court to revisit past decisions. Wade in Dobbs and in confirming that lower courts must enforce the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms." The admissions cases would have broad implications since they concern both a private institution and a public university. Mark Smith, a senior fellow in law and public policy at the Federalist Society, notes that "the Court has already done this by overruling Roe v. The comments could signal the Court’s willingness to continue overturning long-standing legal precedents. "It seems to mean everything for everyone."Īlito also questioned the notion and asked how the universities could favor "underrepresented minority" candidates for admission without "disadvantaging" other students. "I’ve heard the word diversity quite a few times, and I don’t have a clue what it means," Thomas said. He also took issue with attorneys who argued the practices promote diversity. "I guess I don’t put much stock in that, because I’ve heard similar arguments for segregation," Thomas said in response.
On Monday, Thomas and Alito reserved their toughest questioning for attorneys who said such admissions practices improve educational outcomes. Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts all dissented in a 2016 case before the Supreme Court that allowed for race-based admissions at the University of Texas. Questions from the Court’s conservative justices-many of whom have dissented against past affirmative action cases-indicated they were sympathetic to the plaintiffs' argument. The plaintiffs argue the universities are discriminating against Asian and white applicants, while attorneys representing the schools have defended the race-conscious admissions policies as lawful and necessary to achieve racial diversity. The High Court heard oral arguments in two cases brought by Students for Fair Admissions against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.
0 kommentar(er)
