Civil and Human Rights

RELEASE: Supreme Court’s Professed Originalists Ignore Constitutional Text and History in Striking Down University Race-Conscious Affirmative Action Programs

WASHINGTON, DC – Following the Supreme Court’s announcement of its decisions in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, Constitutional Accountability Center Director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program David Gans issued the following reaction:

Chief Justice John Robert’s majority opinion striking down race-conscious affirmative action programs adopted by the University of North Carolina and Harvard College is unfaithful to the Fourteenth Amendment’s text and history. Chief Justice Roberts recites the eloquent words of the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment who sought to stamp out racial subordination, but he ignores the fact that the same Framers who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment were the originators of affirmative action.

As Justice Sonia Sotomayor observed in a brilliant dissent that echoed CAC’s brief, “[s]imultaneously with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress enacted a number of race-conscious laws to fulfill the Amendment’s promise of equality, leaving no doubt that the Equal Protection Clause permits consideration of race to achieve its goal.” In striking down the use of race to foster equal educational opportunities, the Court’s conservative majority betrays the promise of equal citizenship at the core of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Roberts may not like it, but the fact of the matter is that the same Congress that wrote the Fourteenth Amendment passed numerous laws with race-conscious programs over the objection that they were not color-blind.

The Supreme Court’s conservative super-majority claims to be originalist, but as today’s opinion illustrates, the Court’s conservative justices are often quick to turn a blind eye when constitutional text and history point in a progressive direction. Today’s opinion disrespects the handiwork of the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment and limits the authority of colleges and universities to foster equal opportunities for all students regardless of race—even as systemic longstanding racial inequalities persist. This does violence to the Fourteenth Amendment and its history.

##

Resources:

Case page in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/students-for-fair-admissions-v-harvard-college-students-for-fair-admissions-v-university-of-north-carolina/

David H. Gans, Race-Consciousness Is Baked into the Constitution’s Text and History, CAC Blog: https://www.theusconstitution.org/blog/blog-race-consciousness-is-baked-into-the-constitutions-text-and-history/

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a nonpartisan think tank and public interest law firm dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text, history, and values. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

###

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
April 4, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington is considering whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is considering whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.