Justice Scalia: 14th Amendment for All, Not ‘Only the Blacks’

Stephen Dinan, Washington Times, October 15, 2013

The Supreme Court appeared eager during oral arguments Tuesday to uphold a Michigan ban on affirmative action, with the justices even considering whether they would need to overrule previous precedents to make sure the state’s color-blind school admissions requirement can remain in place.

Michigan voters added the ban on race- and sex-based preferences to their state constitution in a 2006 vote, but the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year held that the provision violates the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause because it sets a higher political bar for minorities.


Affirmative action supporters, though, countered that the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause is designed not to be color-blind, but specifically to protect racial and ethnic minorities from the actions of majorities.

Shanta Driver, the lawyer for the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, said any state action that puts minorities at a disadvantage, even if the purpose is to lessen a special benefit those minorities had enjoyed, violates the federal Constitution.

“It’s a measure in which the question of discrimination is determined by power, by who has privilege in this society, and those minorities that are oppressed, be they religious or racial, need protection from a more privileged majority,” Ms. Driver said.

But Justice Antonin Scalia balked at that interpretation.

“My goodness, I thought we’ve held that the 14th Amendment protects all races,” he said. “I mean, that was the argument in the early years, that it protected only the blacks. But I thought we rejected that.”

He challenged Ms. Driver to cite one Supreme Court precedent that agreed the Equal Protection Clause was designed only to apply to blacks. She said she could not.


Justices said the current case is not so much about affirmative action as about the political process.

Opponents of Michigan’s amendment say that by elevating a ban on racial preferences into the state’s constitution, the state has imposed a higher burden on minorities than it has on other groups, such as alumni or geographic regions.


The justices prodded the attorneys on whether they could uphold the Michigan amendment without overturning two other Supreme Court rulings, both of which ruled that states couldn’t change their political process to impose discrimination.

But in the current case, Michigan officials argued, they aren’t imposing discrimination, only eliminating a special preference for minorities.



Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.