In several notable cases, including one dealing with affirmative action in college admissions and another dealing with student loans, the court struck down longstanding affirmative action policies used to bolster minority admissions and put a thorn in President Joe Biden’s plan to eliminate a large chunk of student debt. The decisions garnered strong responses from legal scholars, elected officials and others as many of the rulings came with hefty practical and political implications.
In response to the combined ruling for Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions. v. University of North Carolina, which ruled college admissions programs infringed upon the Equal Protection Clause, American Bar Association (ABA) President Deborah Enix-Ross urged universities to find new ways to ensure schools continue to promote diversity in their class constitution.
“We believe it is imperative that colleges, universities and state legislatures find alternative ways to create a diverse and talented student body. Law schools are training grounds for lawyers and play an important role to ensure a diverse bench and bar, which are critical to minimizing implicit bias and inspiring greater public faith in the rule of law,” Enix-Ross said.
In that case, Chief Justice John Roberts penned a 6-3 majority opinion that held the programs violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause because they did not offer “measurable” benchmarks with respect to the use of race, explains the ABA. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor penned dissenting opinions.
From Twitter
Sen. Marsha Blackburn @MarshaBlackburn
"Many Democrats believe packing the Supreme Court is justified simply because they disagree with certain decisions of the Court. Let that sink in."
Additionally, the Supreme Court also issued other significant education-related decisions in the Department of Education v Brown and Biden v Nebraska. In the former case, the court said the plaintiff did have standing, and in the latter, the court ruled the Biden administration did not have the authority to create a $430 billion loan forgiveness program. That ruling was also 6-3, notes the ABA.
Another noteworthy rebuke of the nation’s progressive agenda came from Creative 303 v. Elenis, which held a website designer in Colorado had First Amendment protections with respect to turning down work for same-sex couples. Vice President Kamala Harris took exception to the ruling and issued a statement in objection. In it, she noted the irony the ruling was handed down on the final day of Pride Month.
“All people deserve to live free from discrimination. When you walk into a restaurant, a hotel, or any business open to the public, you are entitled to be served free from discrimination. For years, our nation’s civil rights laws have helped to make that ideal more real,” Harris wrote. “The Supreme Court’s ruling in 303 Creative v. Elenis departs from decades of jurisprudence by creating an exception to protections against discrimination in public accommodations.”
From Twitter
Senator John Fetterman @SenFettermanPA
"I'm still trying to wrap my head around this. This extreme SCOTUS used a MADE-UP case to directly attack millions of LGTBQ Americans. It’s a slap in the face to everyone who cares about equal justice under the law. https://newrepublic.com/article/174048/supreme-court-doesnt-care-gay-wedding-website-case-based-fiction"
The court did, however, also feature two noteworthy rulings that saw the court’s traditionally liberal justices in the majority in Allen v Milligan and Moore v Harper, both of which dealt with voting and election law, notes the ABA’s rulings roundup.