Schuette v. Coalition, in tweets

by Walter Olson on April 23, 2014

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court, over two dissents, ruled that the voters of Michigan were within their rights under the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause to enact an amendment to the state constitution barring racial preference in public university admissions. (Earlier here, here, etc.) Justice Kennedy wrote a plurality opinion for three Justices, while Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas, Justice Breyer, and Chief Justice Roberts wrote separate concurring opinions. Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Kagan was recused. Both sides maintained that the core controversy was not over whether Michigan was obliged to keep racial preferences as such, but rather over whether the state’s way of banning them (through voter constitutional amendment) had fallen afoul of the Court’s holding in earlier cases that the Equal Protection Clause requires that the political process itself not be arranged in ways unfavorable to minority interests.

I sent out tweets and retweets summarizing highlights of the Roberts, Scalia, Sotomayor, and plurality opinions and reprint them here, earliest first (starting with the Roberts and Scalia opinions).

More in a second post; and Hans Bader has an extensive analysis, including implications for costly preferences in public contracting.

{ 3 trackbacks }

Supreme Court on racial preferences, cont'd - Overlawyered
04.24.14 at 12:45 am
A Victory for Taxpayers and Equal Protection: Supreme Court Upholds Michigan’s Proposal 2
04.28.14 at 9:11 am
College Admissions | Affirmative Action | Freedom
04.29.14 at 8:00 am

{ 1 comment }

1 Ron Miller 04.23.14 at 12:31 pm

This whole thing is ridiculous and outrageous. You should be ashamed.

How can you justify this blatant end-run around the 140 character word limit on Twitter?

Comments on this entry are closed.