The opinion pertains to a 2006 Michigan constitutional amendment approved by 58% of the state's voters. The amendment banned the use of racial preferences in university admissions. It states:
[state colleges and universities] “shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.”
Justice Kennedy wrote in his opinion:
“This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it.”
... "It is important to note what this case is not about," he wrote at the outset of his opinion. "It is not about the constitutionality, or the merits, of race-conscious admissions policies in higher education."
According to the Wall St. Journal, eight states, including California, have ended affirmative action since 1996. The decision does not affect states without such a ban or states where affirmative action is used. The Detroit Free Press puts it this way:
The opinion doesn't end affirmative action — it just very strongly upheld the right of voters to ban it.
The New York Times has an editorial on the decision, Racial Equality Loses at the Court . It agrees with Justice Sotomayor's statement, “Our Constitution places limits on what a majority of the people may do,” she wrote, such as when they pass laws that oppress minorities." and adds:
That’s what the affirmative action ban does, by altering the political process to single out race and sex as the only factors that may not be considered in university admissions.
I think it's a bad decision. Why should voters of a state that is overwhelmingly white be allowed to restrict the decisions of a state university as to minority admissions? How can minorities ever gain equal standing under such a scenario? As Justice Sotomayor wrote:
“The Constitution does not ...give the majority free rein to erect selective barriers against racial minorities.”
