Law & Courts

High Court Weighs Mich. Affirmative-Action Ban

By Mark Walsh — October 21, 2013 4 min read
Nakia Wallace, center, a Detroit high school student, protests at the U.S. Supreme Court in support of affirmative action. The high court is weighing a Michigan law barring its use in higher education.
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

Conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court appeared skeptical last week that Michigan’s voter-enacted prohibition on affirmative action in higher education violates the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection principles.

The 2006 ballot measure known as Proposal 2 was not a “racial classification,” as its opponents suggest, Justice Antonin Scalia said during the Oct. 15 oral arguments in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (Case No. 12-682). “It’s a prohibition of racial classifications.”

The Michigan ballot initiative also bars race preferences in K-12 public schools and other areas of state government, but the case before the high court concerns the measure’s prohibition of race preferences in college admissions. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court’s decision could have wide implications.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., another of the court’s conservatives on race issues, said one way to look at the equal-protection clause was that it takes “race off the table.”

“Is it unreasonable for the state to say, ‘Look, race is a lightning rod.’ … So why don’t we say we want [colleges] to do everything [they] can without having racial preferences?”

Paths to Diversity

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, in Cincinnati, ruled last year that the ballot measure made it more difficult for racial minorities to achieve a race-conscious admissions policy. That was a significant change in the ordinary political process and a racial classification that violates the Supreme Court’s “political restructuring” doctrine, the appellate court said.

The doctrine stems from two Supreme Court precedents. In Hunter v. Erickson, the high court in 1969 invalidated an Akron, Ohio, ballot measure that had overturned a local fair-housing ordinance. In Washington v. Seattle School District No. 1, the court in 1982 struck down a ballot-initiated state law that prohibited busing for school desegregation.

Those cases, especially the Seattle busing case, figured prominently in oral arguments.

“There’s no way to distinguish Seattle from this case, nor the Hunter case,” said the American Civil Liberties Union’s Mark D. Rosenbaum, one of two lawyers arguing against the Michigan measure. Both cases would have to be overruled for the Supreme Court to be able to reinstate the ballot measure, he said.

The Proposal 2 opponents found strong allies in two of the court’s more liberal members.

“The rationale of Seattle is that notion that we can’t put hurdles in the way of a disadvantaged minority,” said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the court’s liberals who seemed more sympathetic to the group challenging Proposal 2.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who has discussed the role that affirmative action played in her own Ivy League educational career, aggressively challenged the state’s arguments.

“This amendment is stopping the political process,” she said. “It’s saying the board of regents can do everything else in the field of education” but adopt affirmative action.

John J. Bursch, Michigan’s solicitor general, said, “It does not violate equal protection to require equal treatment” of race. He offered the court several narrow legal paths under which the Michigan initiative could be upheld.

A Political Process

Justice Elena Kagan is not participating in the case, presumably because she worked on it when she was U.S. solicitor general. Michigan must attract five votes on the court to overturn the 6th Circuit ruling striking down Proposal 2. (A 4-4 tie on the court would result in the appeals court ruling being affirmed without an opinion.)

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who is usually the pivotal vote in cases about race, told Mr. Bursch that he had trouble distinguishing the 1982 Seattle decision from the Michigan case.

But he pressed the lawyers attacking Proposal 2 about why the equal-protection concern should kick in with a ballot initiative eliminating affirmative action in admissions, but not if the board of regents or other state officials make such a decision.

Noting that Michigan’s regents had delegated the decisions about whether to have race-conscious admissions policies to state university faculties, Justice Kennedy said, “Why is ... a faculty decision any less outcome-determinative than what the voters would say?”

“That’s part of the ordinary political process,” said Mr. Rosenbaum. But he and Shanta Driver, the lawyer representing the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, stressed that putting the question to voters put the issue on “a separate and unequal political track,” as Mr. Rosenbaum put it.

A decision in the case is expected by late June.

What Shutdown?

Separately, as the Supreme Court carried on business as usual last week despite the shutdown of much of the rest of the federal government, the justices:

• Declined without comment to hear an appeal from black parents that a student-assignment plan for the Metropolitan Nashville school district led to unconstitutional resegregation of the schools. The appeal was Spurlock v. Fox (No. 13-196).

• Dismissed a case about age-discrimination claims by public employees that was being watched closely by groups representing teachers and school boards. The Oct. 7 oral arguments in Madigan v. Levin (No. 12-872) had revealed procedural problems with the case, so the high court’s dismissal did not come as a surprise.

A version of this article appeared in the October 09, 2013 edition of Education Week as Appeal Argued on Affirmative-Action Ban

Events

This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Assessment Webinar
Reflections on Evidence-Based Grading Practices: What We Learned for Next Year
Get real insights on evidence-based grading from K-12 leaders.
Content provided by Otus
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Student Well-Being Webinar
Creating Resilient Schools with a Trauma-Responsive MTSS
Join us to learn how school leaders are building a trauma-responsive MTSS to support students & improve school outcomes.
School & District Management Live Online Discussion A Seat at the Table: We Can’t Engage Students If They Aren’t Here: Strategies to Address the Absenteeism Conundrum
Absenteeism rates are growing fast. Join Peter DeWitt and experts to learn how to re-engage students & families.

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Law & Courts Supreme Court Appears Unlikely to Strike Down School E-Rate Program
The Supreme Court seems unlikely to strike down the E-rate program, though some justices questioned its funding structure and oversight.
5 min read
The Supreme Court in Washington, June 30, 2024.
The U.S. Supreme Court considers a major challenge to the E-rate program for school internet connections on March 26.
Susan Walsh/AP
Law & Courts Trump Asks Supreme Court for OK to Move Ahead With Deep Teacher-Training Cuts
The Trump administration on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to allow it to cut hundreds of millions of dollars for teacher training.
2 min read
President Donald Trump, left, holds up a signed executive order as young people hold up copies of the executive order they signed at an education event in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Thursday, March 20, 2025.
President Donald Trump, left, holds up a signed executive order as young people hold up copies of the executive order they signed at an education event in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Thursday, March 20, 2025. The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to permit the cut of funding for teacher training programs.
Ben Curtis/AP
Law & Courts See All the Lawsuits Filed Over Trump's Education Policies
Here’s a look at the moves that have drawn litigation, and where the complaints stand.
3 min read
Republican presidential nominee former President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference held at Trump Tower, Friday, Sept., 6, 2024 in New York.
Donald Trump speaks during a news conference held at Trump Tower on Sept. 6, 2024 in New York. His education actions since returning to the White House in January 2025 have drawn numerous lawsuits alleging he's overstepping his authority.
Stefan Jeremiah/AP
Law & Courts Opinion Can States Bar Religious Charter Schools? The Supreme Court Will Soon Decide
Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions suggest that bans on faith-based charter schools may violate the Free Exercise Clause.
13 min read
The United States Capitol building as a bookcase filled with red, white, and blue policy books in a Washington DC landscape.
Luca D'Urbino for Education Week