In Search of Fundamental Fairness and Equal Protection: The Role of the U.S. Supreme Court in Shaping American Democracy

• Published date: 01 October 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/02750740241242057
• Author: Ellen V. Rubin,Keith P. Baker,Youjung Song,J. Edward Kellough
• Date: 01 October 2024
• Subject Matter: Articles

In Search of Fundamental Fairness and

Equal Protection: The Role of the U.S.

Supreme Court in Shaping American

Democracy

Ellen V. Rubin

1

, Keith P. Baker

2

, Youjung Song

1

and J. Edward Kellough

3

Abstract

In July 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on two cases: Students for Fair Admissions vs. the University of North Carolina and

Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, effectively prohibiting the use of race as one of many

factors in college or university admissions decisions. To explore these two cases, we conducted a content analysis of the

legal briefs, the f‌inal court ruling, concurrences, and dissents. In its ruling, the Court did not overturn precedents upholding

aff‌irmative action, but the majority interpreted those prior cases in such a way that makes it impossible to justify the use of

race in college admissions. Although these cases are from the context of higher education, the ruling highlights the fragility of

aff‌irmative action generally and may challenge the legal and regulatory structure that underpins many other important civil

rights issues.

Keywords

aff‌irmative action, equal protection, college admissions, strict scrutiny, Grutter, Bakke

In Search of Fundamental Fairness and

Equal Protection: The Role of the U.S.

Supreme Court in Shaping American

Democracy

On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States

prohibited U.S. universities from considering race as one of

many factors in admissions decisions. In Students for Fair

Admissions v. University of North Carolina and Students

for Fair Admissions v. the President and Fellows of

Harvard College, the plaintiffs alleged that aff‌irmative

action programs providing limited preferences for African

Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans violated the

Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. In a 5–4

decision, the Supreme Court’s majority agreed.

Understanding the effects of this ruling is vital for public

administration in the United States as it speaks to the more

restrictive interpretation the Supreme Court is maintaining

on the use of race in university admissions. More broadly,

the decision demonstrates arguments over policies prioritiz-

ing equity or equality. This argument is especially important

for the study and practice of U.S. public administration.

According to George Frederickson (2015), social equity is

the third pillar of public administration, following economy

and eff‌iciency. If the Supreme Court no longer considers

equity a legitimate aim for the governance process, this

poses a signif‌icant challenge to the f‌ield.

The impact of this ruling on universities is immediate but

so, too, is the impact on American democracy. Universities

can no longer consider race in admissions policies. The deci-

sion endorsed the use of narrative statements from student

applicants describing how they may have overcome adver-

sity, how they view their position in the broader world, and

how their background informs their leadership style and lead-

ership experiences. Any or all of these factors may be asso-

ciated with race, but a candidate’s race can no longer serve

as a factor in admissions decisions. From the majority’s

1

Department of Public Administration and Policy,University at Albany, State

University of New York, Albany, USA

2

State University of New York at Brockport, Brockport, USA

3

University of Georgia, Athens, USA

*Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the Public Management

Research Conference (PMRC), June 27–30, 2023, Utrecht, Netherlands

and at the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Public

Administration, March 20–24, 2023, Online.

Corresponding Author:

Keith P. Baker,State University of New York at Brockport, Brockport, USA.

Email: kbaker@brockport.edu

Article

American Review of Public Administration

2024, Vol. 54(7) 619–629

© The Author(s) 2024

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/02750740241242057

journals.sagepub.com/home/arp