The U.S. Supreme Court wields immense power to shape the political environment, in key areas ranging from affirmative action to free speech. Not only does the judiciary serve as a check on the power of the executive and legislative branches, but the Court’s decisions can significantly impact various aspects of your life.
Higher Education- Affirmative Action & Student Loans
In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, the Court ruled that race-conscious admissions policies, commonly referred to as affirmative action, at Harvard and the University of North Carolina are unlawful, as they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Clause states that all citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law and have certain privileges and immunities which should not be abridged.
While colleges cannot give preference to applicants based on race, Chief Justice Roberts noted that admissions officers can consider race in some circumstances, such as if an admissions essay discusses how race has affected the applicant’s life experiences. This 6-3 decision overruled the legal precedent established in Grutter v. Bollinger, a 2003 case where the Supreme Court ruled that it was permissible to consider race in holistic admissions programs in order to achieve educational diversity.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sotomayor criticized the majority for “further entrenching racial inequality in education” and overturning decades of precedent that had justified affirmative action “without any new factual or legal justification.” Justice Jackson dissented as well, writing that the 14th Amendment was intended to undo systematic racial oppression through affirmative, race-conscious steps. Chief Justice Roberts argued that the dissenting members would not allow discrimination against Black and Latino applicants in college admissions, and therefore upholding affirmative action would make the Court “a judiciary that picks winners and losers based on the color of their skin.”
In a 6-3 decision of Biden v. Nebraska, the Court ruled that the Biden Administration’s $400 billion student debt forgiveness plan was not authorized by Congress.
For some context, the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003, or the HEROES Act, gives the Secretary of Education the authority to waive or modify federal student loan programs for individuals who “suffered direct economic hardship as a direct result of a ‘national emergency.’” Under the HEROES Act, Secretary Miguel Cardona invoked his authority to adopt a student loan forgiveness plan that would provide relief for millions of borrowers impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
However, the Court ruled that he did not have the authority to do so, under the major questions doctrine. This doctrine (also used by the Court in several recent cases) says that Congress has to speak very clearly when authorizing the executive branch to take action on important political and economic matters. While Justice Barrett did join the majority, she wrote in an extended concurring opinion that “the doctrine should not be taken for more than it is – the familiar principle that we do not interpret a statute for all it is worth when a reasonable person would not read it that way.”
In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts added that the economic impact “amounts to nearly one-third of the government’s $1.7 trillion in annual discretionary spending,” and therefore was beyond the secretary’s power. In dissent, Justice Kagan argued that the plan was clearly justified under the HEROES Act, which gives the secretary broad authority to give emergency relief to student-loan borrowers. Though the plan was ruled to be unlawful, the Biden Administration has plans to try again using the Higher Education Act of 1965.
Free Speech, Religion, & LGBTQ+ Rights
In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the Court decided that a graphic designer has a First Amendment right to refuse to create sites for same-sex weddings, despite a Colorado state law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The Christian website designer, Lorie Smith, says that her faith requires her to turn away same-sex couples seeking her design services, though she has not yet started her wedding business due to fears of violating the law. So, she sued to challenge the law, claiming that it infringed upon her rights to free speech and free exercise of religion.
In the majority opinion, Justice Gorsuch wrote that the government should not be able to force creative professionals to create content that expresses an underlying message that they disagree with. In dissent, Justice Sotomayor highlighted the importance of public accommodations laws in ensuring “equal dignity in the common market.” On the topic of dignity, she added that “if you have ever taken advantage of a public business without being denied service because of who you are, then you have come to enjoy the dignity and freedom that this principle protects,” and expressed that the LGBTQ+ community is just as worthy of this dignity.
Though viewed as a win for religious business owners, the decision suggests that LGTBQ rights are no longer as strongly protected under the law, especially when battling against claims of religious freedom. As a result of the ruling, governments now have a limited ability to enforce anti-discrimination laws.
Environmental Protection
In Sackett v. EPA, the Court’s ruling interpreted the Clean Water Act– which prohibits the “discharge of pollutants” into “navigable waters”– more narrowly. The decision limits the Environmental Protection Agency regulatory efforts to only wetlands that have a direct and continuous surface connection with relatively permanent U.S. waters.
The case involved the Sackett couple, who attempted to build a house near Priest Lake in Idaho. In 2007, they started construction preparations by adding gravel and fill to the property, but were met with an order from the EPA to halt construction and return the property to its original state. The Sacketts’ property did not fall under the Clean Water Act and was therefore not subject to permitting requirements, so the Court unanimously ruled that the agency had overstepped in seeking to regulate this property.
The decision is expected to leave many wetlands subject to pollution without penalty, given the EPA’s limited authority to protect them under the Clean Water Act. Justice Kavanaugh, along with the Court’s three liberal justices, wrote that “by narrowing the act’s coverage of wetlands to only adjoining wetlands, the Court’s new test will leave some long-regulated adjacent wetlands no longer covered by the Clean Water Act, with significant repercussions for water quality and flood control throughout the United States.”
Voting Maps
In Allen, Alabama Secretary of State v. Milligan, the Court ruled that Alabama had diluted the power of Black voters by redrawing a congressional voting map to include only one majority Black district. In a 5-4 decision, the majority agreed that race may play a role in redistricting procedures and required the Alabama legislature to redraw their maps.
The decision was based on Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits any voting procedure that interferes with any U.S. citizen’s right to vote on account of race. This occurs when minorities “have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.”
Justice Thomas wrote a scathing dissent, accusing the majority of voting “to sustain a system of institutionalized racial discrimination in districting… and thus to prolong the lasting harm to our society caused by the use of racial classifications in the allocation of political power.” In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts emphasized that the decision was not transformative, and instead preserved the status quo in maintaining protections for minority voters.
Tribal Rights
In a 7-2 decision of Haaland v. Brackeen, the Court upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, a law that gives preference to Native American families in the adoption process in order to preserve their heritage.
The Brackeen family, a white foster couple, argued that this policy violates equal protection principles, as the placement is based on race. The tribes identify as political entities, not racial groups, which is an important distinction that current tribal rights laws depend upon.
Either way, the majority dismissed this equal protection argument due to a lack of standing. Instead, the decision affirmed the power of Congress to make laws regarding tribes, rejecting the claim that states should address issues of family law, rather than the federal government. In dissenting opinions, Justice Thomas and Justice Alito expressed concerns that the legislation overstepped federal authority, and ultimately does not prioritize the well-being of the children.
While these are only a few of the major decisions from the Court’s 2022 term, you can read a more exhaustive list of the Court’s opinions here. Given the extensive, powerful impact of the Court’s decisions, combined with the fact that the justices are not elected by the American people, public trust in the Supreme Court tends to decline with particularly controversial decisions. While critiquing the U.S. political institutions helps maintain a strong democracy, it’s still important to stay informed on significant judicial rulings.