Civil and Human Rights

RELEASE: Conservative Originalists on Court Show Stunningly Little Interest in Originalist Arguments in UNC Affirmative Action Case

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina, the first of two cases in which the Court is considering whether it is permissible for public and private institutions of higher education to use race as a factor in admitting a truly diverse student body and providing pathways to leadership for all persons regardless of race, Constitutional Accountability Center Civil Rights Director David Gans issued the following reaction:

In more than three hours of oral argument today, the Court’s conservative supermajority repeatedly ignored the text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court’s so-called conservative originalists repeatedly suggested that any use of race is unconstitutional without grappling with the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment or the long line of race-conscious measures enacted contemporaneous with the Fourteenth Amendment. The same conservative supermajority that repeatedly claims the mantle of originalism to move the law to the right showed stunningly little interest in originalist arguments in this case. This is a selective and unprincipled form of originalism.

Perhaps the Court’s conservatives recognized that if they meaningfully grappled with the text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment, they would have had to recognize that the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment were the originators of affirmative action and affirmative action is consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment’s original meaning. The same members of Congress who wrote the constitutional amendment guaranteeing the equal protection of the laws to all persons also contemporaneously enacted many race-conscious measures designed to foster racial equality. In other words, race-consciousness is baked into the text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment, as both Justice Kagan and Justice Sotomayor observed in their questions.

The view pushed by the conservative supermajority—that universities may take into account every sort of diversity except for racial diversity—turns the Fourteenth Amendment on its head. As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson powerfully made the case, if you let prospective applicants for admission invoke every aspect of their identity and background except for race, the result will be unconstitutional discrimination against people of color—exactly what the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted to prevent.

##

Resources:

Case page in Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/students-for-fair-admissions-v-harvard-college-students-for-fair-admissions-v-university-of-north-carolina/

David Gans, Race-Consciousness Is Baked Into the Constitution’s Text and History, Oct. 3, 2022: https://www.theusconstitution.org/blog/blog-race-consciousness-is-baked-into-the-constitutions-text-and-history/

##

Constitutional Accountability Center is a nonpartisan think tank and public interest law firm dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text, history, and values. Visit CAC’s website at www.theusconstitution.org.

###

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
July 18, 2026

Arnie Arnesen Attitude July 16 2026

Attitude with Arnie Arnesen
CAC’s David H. Gans joined The Attitude with Arnie Arnesen to discuss the Reconstruction Amendments. Listen...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Wridt v. City of New York

In Wridt v. City of New York, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering whether the NYPD’s mass surveillance system is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
July 8, 2026

Ruling Away From America’s Second Founding

Slate
CAC’s David H. Gans wrote about the Roberts Court for Slate magazine. Read more in Slate.
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
July 1, 2026

Furthering Inclusive Constitutionalism

Jotwell
Professor Allison Brownell Tirres reviewed recent scholarship on the Black Conventions of Reconstruction by CAC’s David H....
Civil and Human Rights
June 30, 2026

CAC Release: Roberts Court’s Conservative Supermajority Hollows Out Equal Protection Guarantee

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia...
By: David H. Gans, Praveen Fernandes, Joshua Blecher-Cohen
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC

In Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Constitution permits the Department of Labor to use administrative proceedings to impose civil monetary penalties on employers who violate...