Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_l6gn.pdf
Page Number: 178.0

Cite as:  600 U. S. ____ (2023) 

39 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

422 U. S. 873 (1975), for example, the Court held that it is 
unconstitutional for border patrol agents to rely on a per-
son’s skin color as “a single factor” to justify a traffic stop
based on reasonable suspicion, but it remarked that “Mexi-
can appearance” could be “a relevant factor” out of many to
justify such a stop “at the border and its functional equiva-
lents.”  Id., at 884–887; see also id., at 882 (recognizing that 
“the border” includes entire metropolitan areas such as San 
Diego, El Paso, and the South Texas Rio Grande Valley).31 
The  Court  thus  facilitated  racial  profiling  of  Latinos  as  a 
law  enforcement  tool  and  did  not  adopt  a  race-blind  rule. 
The  Court  later  extended  this  reasoning  to  border  patrol 
agents selectively referring motorists for secondary inspec-
tion at a checkpoint, concluding that “even if it be assumed 
that such referrals are made largely on the basis of appar-
ent Mexican ancestry, [there is] no constitutional violation.” 
United  States  v.  Martinez-Fuerte,  428  U. S.  543,  562–563 
(1976) (footnote omitted).

The result of today’s decision is that a person’s skin color
may play a role in assessing individualized suspicion, but it 
cannot play a role in assessing that person’s individualized 
contributions to a diverse learning environment.  That in-
defensible  reading  of  the  Constitution  is  not  grounded  in
law and subverts the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee 
of equal protection. 

2 
The majority does not dispute that some uses of race are
constitutionally  permissible.  See  ante,  at  15.   Indeed,  it 
agrees that a limited use of race is permissible in some col-
lege admissions programs.  In a footnote, the Court exempts 
military  academies  from  its  ruling  in  light  of  “the  poten-
tially distinct interests” they may present.  Ante, at 22, n. 4. 

—————— 

31 The Court’s “dictum” that Mexican appearance can be one of many 
factors rested on now-outdated quantitative premises.  United States v. 
Montero-Camargo, 208 F. 3d 1122, 1132 (CA9 2000).