On
April 22nd, the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of a Michigan
referendum that outlawed affirmative action in Schuette v. BAMN.
Under Chief Justice John Roberts, the
Supreme Court has issued a series of decisions that undermine the achievements
of the Civil Rights Movement. Schuette
represents the latest episode in this unfortunate trend.
In
2006 Michigan's Civil Rights Initiative ("Proposal 2") amended the State's Constitution to prohibit
"preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race,
sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin." A coalition of Civil Rights
groups filed a civil action claiming that Proposal 2 violated the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it altered the state's
political process in a manner injured racial minorities.
Applying the
“political process” doctrine, the
Sixth Circuit held that Proposal 2 created a special burden on racial on
minorities that was not imposed on other groups. The Court relied on the rulings in Hunter v. Erickson, 393
U.S. 385 (1969) and Washington v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1 (1982).
Those cases held when a majority of the
electorate modifies the political process in a manner that burdens a racial
minority's ability to participate on an equal basis in the political process, it
deprives that group's rights to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
In Hunter v. Erikson the City of Akron, Ohio, enacted a
fair housing ordinance that prohibited racial discrimination in housing. Voters
responded by amending the city charter to overturn the ordinance and to require
any additional antidiscrimination housing ordinances be approved by a referendum.
Other ordinances regulating the real property market were not subjected to similar
requirements. The Supreme Court found that by singling out antidiscrimination
ordinances, Akron's city charter amendment placed a special burden on racial
minorities' participation in a governmental process that was not imposed on
other groups.
In Washington
v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1,
a school board adopted a busing program to promote racial
diversity in schools. Voters who opposed the school
board’s plan enacted a state initiative that prohibited busing to desegregate
schools. The Court found that the practical effect of the state's initiative
was to remove the authority to address a racial problem from the existing
decision making body in a way that unduly burdened minority group's
participation in the political process.
Applying the same reasoning, the Sixth Circuit struck down Proposal 2 in Schuette because it established a
distinct and more burdensome political process for the enactment of University
admissions plans that considered racial diversity. Donors, athletic officials,
religious organizations, and alumni can advocate that Michigan's public universities
include their constituents in admissions decisions. Racial and ethnic
minorities and others who support greater student body diversity were
effectively precluded from doing so.
In an 8-2 decision the Supreme Court
reversed the Sixth Circuit. The majority
ruled that courts cannot prohibit a state's voters from choosing to outlaw
affirmative action programs. Justice
Kennedy's plurality opinion in Schuette
sought to distinguish Hunter and Seattle
on the grounds that Proposal 2 did not inflict the type of injury involved in
those cases. However, it left unexplained how the injury to minority groups in Schuette is different.
As in Hunter and Seattle, voters in Michigan imposed burdens on minorities' efforts to influence
university admission policies that were not established for other groups. The plurality
opinion conceded that Hunter and Seattle applied, but claimed that those decisions took an unduly expansive view
of the Equal Protection Clause and are no longer viable precedents. So
much for stare decisis.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito
joined Kennedy's plurality opinion. Justice's Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia
would have overruled Hunter and Seattle outright. Justice Stephen Breyer
concurred with the result based on a different legal rationale. Justice
Sotomayor issued a strongly worded dissent which was joined by Justice Ruth
Bader Ginsburg.
Kennedy's plurality opinion emphasized that the decision in Schuette did not disturb the ruling in Fisher v. University of Texas which held that consideration of race in University admissions is permissible. However, Fisher made race conscious affirmative action plans far more difficult to justify. The Schuette decision is just as damaging as it likely to encourage other states to enact similar bans on affirmative action.
[1]
Leland Ware, Louis L. Redding Chair and Professor of Law & Public Policy
University of Delaware
No comments:
Post a Comment