The Supreme Court of the United States enters this fall in what is presented as its second year of demolishing rights, freedoms, political advances and social achievements. After an intense season in which it suppressed the right to abortion, expanded the possibilities for carrying weapons on the street and stripped the Government of its regulatory powers against climate change, the conservative majority of six to three magistrates that dominates the Court can inflict now strong setbacks to policies against racism and discrimination against gay couples, among other minorities.
To begin with, it is possible and even probable that the Supreme Court will end this next academic year with 44 years of positive discrimination of the country’s universities to ensure minimum quotas for black, Hispanic or Native American students and thus favor diversity in the faculties.
This may occur when the judges address the appeals filed by the conservative organization Students for Fair Admissions against lower court decisions that upheld the racial integration standards of the private university of Harvard and the public university of North Carolina. In both cases, the appellant organization argues that the consideration of race as one of the admission criteria for students in said centers has the effect of discriminating against Asian-American applicants, an argument that has been widely rejected to date by the courts but that now the Supreme wants, at least, to listen.
It is since 1978, and with the express support of the Supreme Court itself, that colleges and universities can in fact usually include race or ethnic origin as a “positive factor” in student admissions to ensure racial plurality on campus.
The highest judicial body has endorsed that anti-discrimination rule on numerous occasions, but almost always by a single vote. His last ruling in favor dates back to 2016, and then Supreme Court President John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, the three conservatives and still on the court, made dissenting dissenting opinions. Now their dissent can become law with three other right-wing judges on the court who could support them: Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch, all nominated by President Donald Trump.
For the president of Harvard University, Lawrence Bacow, the decision of the Supreme Court to review the norms of positive discrimination in teaching “endangers 40 years of legal precedents that grant the freedom and flexibility necessary to create diverse university communities that strengthen the learning environment for all.
At the beginning of October, weeks before the case against the universities of Harvard and North Carolina, the Supreme Court will hear the appeal of the Republican legislators of the state of Alabama against a sentence that ordered them to reverse their configuration of the constituencies for the votes to Congress . The reason was that his drawing of district maps violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting power of blacks, according to state judges. From the outset, as soon as the appeal was filed in February, the Supreme Court opted to prudentially annul the ruling of those judges while it took the time to prosecute the case. Alabama legislators are not required to redraw districts while the Washington Court, after hearing the matter scheduled for October 3, deliberates and resolves. The process can take up to 8 months, so the legislative elections in November will be held there with an advantage for the Republicans and possible damage to the black community.
In connection with this matter, the Court will study a legal theory that would give state parliaments far greater power than they now have over federal elections. The case was brought by North Carolina Republicans following a state Supreme Court ruling that rejected an electoral map as partisan and contrary to the state constitution. Conservative lawmakers argued that the state court lacks the authority to strike down such a map. The Supreme admitted the appeal. If he were to agree with parliamentarians in the end, he would be giving states new powers over districting and electoral procedures, including voting by mail.
The Court will also hear from a Colorado web designer who is using her freedom of expression to avoid being forced to create gay wedding websites. Lower courts overruled her claim by establishing her state law that she “must work with all persons regardless of their sexual orientation,” race, gender, or status. But the Supreme Court is willing to consider the allegation of the interested party and to confront a rule of defense of minorities with an argument alluding to freedom of expression. A tricky subject. Like everything that the US Supreme Court is stirring up lately.
