TEASER: In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court limited public school districts’ use of race in school assignments. While the deciding justices plainly state numerous times in their opinion that the ruling will not affect higher education, the four dissenting liberals argued that the court’s decision “tacitly” overrules Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s affirmative action admissions policy in 2003.
Not only was the U.S. Supreme Court split in its decision to reject the integration strategies of the Louisville, Ky., and Seattle public school districts Thursday, but they were also split over whether the decision will affect higher education.
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court limited public school districts’ use of race in school assignments. While the deciding justices plainly state numerous times in their opinion that the ruling will not affect higher education, the four dissenting liberals argued that the court’s decision “tacitly” overrules Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s affirmative action admissions policy in 2003.
Goodwin Liu, who wrote the amicus curiae brief for 19 former University of California chancellors in support of the two school districts’ integration programs, says the decision won’t threaten the Grutter ruling.
“I think that the majority of the court is still willing to keep the Michigan affirmative action case intact,” he says.
Nevertheless, Liu, an assistant professor of law at UC-Berkeley, says proponents of affirmative action must still be cautious.
“Colleges and universities have to continue to be careful in how they design their own race-conscious affirmative action measures,” he says. “That was true ever since 2003, but it is even more true today because there are four conservative justices who would gladly overrule Grutter. And there is Justice [Anthony] Kennedy, who was dissenting in Grutter. So if you count the votes, there are five votes who would have decided Grutter differently if the case was brought completely fresh with no precedent in mind. But Justice Kennedy’s decision today suggests that at least for now he regards Grutter as an intact precedent.”
