Amy Howe

Jul 22 2022

Court will hear affirmative-action challenges separately, allowing Jackson to participate in UNC case

The Supreme Court announced on Friday that it will consider two challenges to the role of race in college admissions separately, rather than – as it had originally planned – together. That news, which came in a brief order from the court, was not unexpected: It allows Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court’s newest justice, to participate in one of the cases, involving the consideration of race in the University of North Carolina’s undergraduate admissions process, while recusing herself from a similar case involving Harvard University, where she recently completed a six-year term on the university’s board of overseers.

The order in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina allotted one hour for argument in each case, rather than the one hour that had initially been allotted for a joint argument in both cases. The cases have not yet been scheduled for oral argument, although they are expected to be argued in the fall.

The challengers in both cases are urging the justices to overrule their landmark 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, holding that the University of Michigan could consider race in its undergraduate admissions process as part of its efforts to obtain a diverse student body. The justices granted review in the two cases on Jan. 24. Three days later, Justice Stephen Breyer announced his plans to retire when the court began its summer recess; on Feb. 25, President Joe Biden nominated Jackson to succeed Breyer.

At her confirmation hearing in March, Jackson testified that, if confirmed, she would not participate in the Harvard case. That announcement led to Friday’s order, issued just over three weeks after Jackson was sworn in at the Supreme Court.

The decision to separate the two cases mirrored a similar move in 2020, in a pair of cases challenging laws in Colorado and Washington that penalize or remove presidential electors who do not vote for the candidate they pledged to support. The justices granted review in January 2020 and consolidated the cases for a one-hour joint argument. In March 2020, the court announced that the two cases were no longer consolidated: Justice Sonia Sotomayor had recused herself from the Colorado case because of her friendship with one of the challengers in the Colorado case.

This post is also published on SCOTUSblog.

Amy L Howe
Until September 2016, Amy served as the editor and reporter for SCOTUSblog, a blog devoted to coverage of the Supreme Court of the United States; she continues to serve as an independent contractor and reporter for SCOTUSblog. Before turning to full-time blogging, she served as counsel in over two dozen merits cases at the Supreme Court and argued two cases there. From 2004 until 2011, she co-taught Supreme Court litigation at Stanford Law School; from 2005 until 2013, she co-taught a similar class at Harvard Law School. She has also served as an adjunct professor at American University’s Washington College of Law and Vanderbilt Law School. Amy is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and holds a master’s degree in Arab Studies and a law degree from Georgetown University.
Tweets by @AHoweBlogger
Recent ScotusBlog Posts from Amy
  • Justices throw out lower-court ruling allowing state court clerk to be sued in parental notification abortion case
  • Justices decline to halt execution of Texas man with intellectual disability claim
  • Justices take up case on federal admiralty law, seek government’s views on two pending petitions
More from Amy Howe

Recent Posts

  • Court rules for deaf student in education-law case
  • Parties disagree over court’s power to reach decision in election law case
  • Justices throw out lower-court ruling allowing state court clerk to be sued in parental notification abortion case
  • Justices decline to halt execution of Texas man with intellectual disability claim
  • Justices take up case on federal admiralty law, seek government’s views on two pending petitions
Site built and optimized by Sound Strategies