Race-Conscious Measures and the U.S. Constitution: CAC’s Brief in Fisher Explains Difference Between a No Trespassing Sign and a Welcome Mat

CAC President Doug Kendall: “The Constitution is colorblind, but it is not blind to reality.”

              

Washington, DC –  In a groundbreaking brief filed today in the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin on behalf of luminaries in the study of the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, Constitutional Accountability Center examines the text of the Amendment and the history of its drafting, and shows that not only does the Amendment’s text permit the enactment of race-conscious policies to foster equality, but that the Framers of the Amendment themselves enacted many such measures.

 

CAC President Doug Kendall said, “Conservatives who purport to revere the text of the Constitution and the people who wrote it must confront the historical analysis we provide to the Court in this brief.  The fight among proponents and opponents of affirmative action has too often been reduced to sound bites about whether the Fourteenth Amendment is ‘colorblind.’ Yes, the Constitution is colorblind,” Kendall continued, “but it is not blind to reality.”

 

The law professors represented by CAC in this brief are among the nation’s leading scholars of the Fourteenth Amendment, including Bruce Ackerman, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale Law School; Vikram Amar, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor of Law, University of California at Davis School of Law; Jack M. Balkin, Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment; Burt Neuborne, Inez Milholland Professor of Civil Liberties, New York University School of Law; James E. Ryan, William L. Matheson & Robert M. Morgenthau Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law; and Adam Winkler, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law.

 

CAC Civil Rights Director David Gans said, “The text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment make clear that the Constitution permits race-conscious measures to ensure equality of opportunity to all persons.  The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment never lost sight of what Justice John Paul Stevens once called ‘the difference between a ‘No Trespassing’ sign and a welcome mat.’ Neither should we.”

 

#

 

Resources:

 

*  CAC’s “friend of the court” brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin: http://theusconstitution.org/cases/briefs/fisher-v-university-texas/amicus-brief-fisher-v-university-texas

 

*  The Constitution at a Crossroads: “Brown v. Brown: Will the Supreme Court Interpret the Equal Protection Clause to Invalidate Measures Designed to Promote Equal Opportunity and Redress Our Nation’s Long History of Racial Discrimination?” http://theusconstitution.org/think-tank/crossroads/brown-v-brown-will-supreme-court-interpret-equal-protection-clause-invalidate

 

*  CAC Text and History Narrative Series: “Perfecting the Declaration: The Text and History of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” http://theusconstitution.org/think-tank/narrative/perfecting-declaration-text-and-history-equal-protection-clause-fourteenth

 

##

 

Constitutional Accountability Center (https://www.theusconstitution.org) is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history.

 

###

More from

Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Nebraska v. EPA

In Nebraska v. EPA, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is considering the legality of the EPA’s latest motor vehicle emissions standards. 
Immigration and Citizenship
January 21, 2025

States, civil rights groups sue to stop Trump’s birthright citizenship order

Washington Post
Constitutional scholars said the president’s executive order would upend precedent and is unlikely to pass...
Rule of Law
January 20, 2025

RELEASE: Trump’s Shameful Pardons and Commutations Cannot Change the Facts of January 6th

WASHINGTON, DC – Upon reports that President Donald Trump has issued pardons and commutations for individuals...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Rule of Law
U.S. Supreme Court

Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research

In Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research, the Supreme Court is considering whether a federal law that requires the FCC to establish programs making internet access more affordable is unconstitutional under the nondelegation doctrine. 
Rule of Law
January 10, 2025

TV (C-SPAN): Elizabeth Wydra on Trump Sentencing in New York Hush Money Case

C-SPAN
[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n7g_TJRor4[/embed] Constitutional Accountability Center's Elizabeth Wydra talked about President-elect Trump's sentencing in his New York...
Rule of Law
January 14, 2025

Civil Rights-Era Abuses Could Return to the FBI Under Kash Patel | Opinion

Newsweek
With the recent start of the 119th Congress and the imminent beginning of a second Trump administration,...
By: Praveen Fernandes