Justice Samuel Alito issued a strongly worded dissent Tuesday against the Supreme Court's decision to deny a writ to reconsider a case involving affirmative action at a prominent high school.
The court denied the ruling in T.J. v. Fairfax County School Boards United, in which a group of parents and students at Thomas Jefferson High School of Science and Technology in Alexandria, Virginia, filed a lawsuit seeking to rescind the new admissions policy. . Discrimination against Asian Americans. While the court denied the ruling When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the policy, Alito wrote a dissent, accusing the majority of undermining the ruling. Student for Fair Admissions, Inc. vs. Harvard University It declared race-based admissions policies unconstitutional. (Related: Supreme Court declines to consider racial admissions case at elite high school)
“nevertheless New policy puts 'more focus' on Asia American applicants (due to decreased chance of winning) Admit admissions while increasing the chances of all other races group), [Fourth Circuit] The majority thought there was no disparity They still had an influence because they were in the majority. [school’s] Student Organizations,” Alito wrote in a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas. “that I can't defend… [t]The Fourth Circuit's decision is based on a grossly flawed theory. and should do not have approved stand. “
TJ vs. Fairfax Coalition… by Daily Caller News Foundation
Alito cited “disparate impact,” a standard used to determine whether an ostensibly race-neutral policy is adopted with “racist intent or purpose” and therefore violates the Constitution. accused the Fourth Circuit of distorting the meaning of
“[Asian-ethnic] Students have great success in securing admission [the school] Fourth Circuit Judge Robert Bruce King, appointed by President Bill Clinton, added in his ruling: [appellee] Failing to identify evidence to suggest that the board adopted the policy “at least in part” because of some calculated negative impact[s] About Asian American students. ”
Alito argued that this aspect of the Fourth Circuit's decision was “patently false” and “completely distorted.”
“Under the old policy, each Asian American applicant was given a certain chance of admission. Under the new policy, that chance was significantly reduced, while other racial and ethnic groups “Members' chances of admission have increased. Therefore, the new admissions policy focuses on Asian American applicants,” Alito wrote. “The following case law effectively authorizes public actors to discriminate against any racial group with impunity, so long as that group continues to outperform other groups.”
Records in the case included emails and communications from school officials expressing a desire to use the new admissions process to increase the number of black and Hispanic students in the student body. “[We] We have to recognize that there are unacceptable numbers, including an unacceptable number of African Americans. [the school]” wrote board member Karen Keyes Gamarra in a communiqué included in the records. petition For Cheeriolali.
Alito warned that the court's decision will make the school's policy a model for groups that want to: To avoid Race-based admissions policies are prohibited by the Constitution, and numerous amicus curiae courts also raised this argument in this case.
“[T]The Fourth Circuit's reasoning is a virus that can spread if not quickly eliminated…The First Circuit has already cited favorably the Fourth Circuit's analysis, downplaying its use of before-and-after comparisons. “TJ's model itself is being touted by potential replicators as a blueprint for avoiding SFFA,” Alito noted.
Decision to grant discretionary authority need Tuesday's decision was supported by four justices, including Republican appointees Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, who ruled on it because there was no notable disavowal. It means you voted against. They have not written opinions in response to Mr. Alito's criticisms.
“The court's willingness to accept the following extraordinary ruling is difficult to understand,” Alito wrote. “We should wipe this decision off the books, but since the court has refused to do so, I must respectfully disagree.”
All content produced by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent, nonpartisan news distribution service, is available free of charge to legitimate news publishers with large audiences. All republished articles must include our logo, reporter byline, and DCNF affiliation. If you have any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact us at licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
