Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_l6gn.pdf
Page Number: 177.0

38  STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT 

AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE 
SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

op.,  at  6–7).  At  bottom,  the  six  unelected  members  of  to-
day’s majority upend the status quo based on their policy 
preferences about what race in America should be like, but 
is not, and their preferences for a veneer of colorblindness 
in a society where race has always mattered and continues 
to matter in fact and in law. 

A 
1 

A limited use of race in college admissions is consistent 
with the Fourteenth Amendment and this Court’s broader 
equal  protection  jurisprudence.  The  text  and  history  of 
the Fourteenth Amendment make clear that the Equal
Protection Clause permits race-conscious measures.  See 
supra, at 2–9.  Consistent with that view, the Court has ex-
plicitly held that “race-based action” is sometimes “within
constitutional constraints.”  Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. 
Peña, 515 U. S. 200, 237 (1995).  The Court has thus upheld 
the use of race in a variety of contexts.  See, e.g., Parents 
Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 
1, 551 U. S. 701, 737 (2007) (“[T]he obligation to disestab-
lish  a  school  system  segregated  by  law  can  include  race-
conscious remedies—whether or not a court had issued an 
order to that effect”); Johnson v. California, 543 U. S. 499, 
512 (2005) (use of race permissible to further prison’s inter-
est in “ ‘security’ ” and “ ‘discipline’ ”); Cooper v. Harris, 581 
U. S.  285,  291–293  (2017)  (use  of  race  permissible  when
drawing voting districts in some circumstances).30 

Tellingly,  in  sharp  contrast  with  today’s  decision,  the 
Court has  allowed the use of race when that  use burdens 
minority populations.  In United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 

—————— 

30 In the context of policies that “benefit rather than burden the minor-
ity,” the Court has adhered to a strict scrutiny framework despite multi-
ple Members of this Court urging that “the mandate of the Equal Protec-
tion Clause” favors applying a less exacting standard of review.  Schuette, 
572 U. S., at 373–374 (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting) (collecting cases).