Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_l6gn.pdf
Page Number: 176

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

37 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

programs  “res[t]  on  pernicious  assumptions  about  race”); 
id.,  at  403  (ALITO,  J.,  joined  by  ROBERTS,  C. J.,  and 
THOMAS,  J.,  dissenting)  (diversity  interests  “are  laudable
goals,  but  they  are  not  concrete  or  precise”);  id.,  at  413 
(race-conscious  college  admissions  plan  “discriminates
against Asian-American students”); id., at 414 (race-conscious 
admissions  plan  is  unconstitutional  because  it  “does  not 
specify what it means to be ‘African-American,’ ‘Hispanic,’ 
‘Asian American,’ ‘Native American,’ or ‘White’ ”); id., at 419 
(race-conscious  college  admissions  policies  rest  on  “perni-
cious stereotype[s]”).

Lost arguments are not grounds to overrule a case.  When 
proponents of those arguments, greater now in number on
the  Court,  return  to  fight  old  battles  anew,  it  betrays  an
unrestrained  disregard  for  precedent.    It  fosters  the  Peo-
ple’s suspicions that “bedrock principles are founded . . . in 
the proclivities of individuals” on this Court, not in the law, 
and it degrades “the integrity of our constitutional system
of  government.”  Vasquez  v.  Hillery,  474  U. S.  254,  265 
(1986).  Nowhere is the damage greater than in cases like
these that touch upon matters of representation and insti-
tutional legitimacy.

The Court offers no justification, much less “a ‘special jus-
tification,’ ”  for  its  costly  endeavor.  Dobbs  v.  Jackson 
Women’s  Health  Organization,  597  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2022) 
(joint opinion of BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., dis-
senting) (slip op., at 31) (quoting Gamble v. United States, 
587  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2019)  (slip  op.,  at  11)).    Nor  could  it. 
There is no basis for overruling Bakke, Grutter, and Fisher. 
The Court’s precedents were correctly decided, the opinion
today is not workable and creates serious equal protection
problems,  important  reliance  interests  favor  respondents, 
and there are no legal or factual developments favoring the
Court’s reckless course.  See 597 U. S., at ___ (joint opinion 
of BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., dissenting) (slip
op., at 31); id., at ___–___ (KAVANAUGH, J., concurring) (slip