• Fisher and Shelby County: Two of a Kind

    by  • June 26, 2013 • Faculty Commentary • 0 Comments

    Nahmod_Sheldon thumbBy Sheldon Nahmod [via Nahmod Law]

    The Supreme Court handed down two important decisions on race in this last week of its 2012 Term that have more in common than appears on first reading.


    The first is Fisher v. University of Texas (PDF), 133 S. Ct. — (2013), where the Court held that the lower federal courts did not properly apply the required strict scrutiny to the University’s affirmative action plan.

    Rather than deferring to University administrators and their good faith regarding the question of whether the affirmative action plan was narrowly tailored to accomplish the compelling interest in diversity, the lower federal courts should have instead engaged in “stricter” scrutiny and asked whether the University adequately considered the availability of race-neutral alternatives to its affirmative action plan.

    In so ruling, the Court did not have to address the question raised by Justices Scalia and Thomas in their separate concurring opinions as to the propriety of using race at all in university admissions for diversity purposes.

    Shelby County

    The second is Shelby County v. Holder (PDF), 133 S. Ct. — (2013), a blockbuster decision where the Court held that Congress had exceeded its powers under section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment when it re-enacted the pre-clearance coverage formula of section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 because that coverage formula was based on outdated data regarding voting and race in the covered Southern states.

    Fisher is a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection case and Shelby County is a Fifteenth Amendment case. But the two cases obviously have race in common.

    Increasing Supreme Court Discomfort with Affirmative Action

    But they also have in common the Court’s increasing discomfort with affirmative action plans involving race. Fisher, of course, expressly dealt with an affirmative action plan for university admissions.

    But I read Shelby County as similarly involving a kind of affirmative action plan, this one involving a Congressional remedy directed against states and local governments that have previously discriminated on the basis of race in voting.

    Reluctance to Defer to Politically Accountable Bodies

    Perhaps more deeply, both cases demonstrate the Court’s unwillingness to defer to politically accountable bodies of government at all levels—federal, state and local—that have enacted such plans in order to provide for diversity and remedy past racial discrimination.

    The Court has apparently concluded that “enough is enough” because the United States is sufficiently close to a “color blind” society to justify much “stricter” scrutiny—which may be fatal in fact—of such admissions and voting plans.

    Of course, whether this is an accurate description of our society remains a matter of considerable debate.


    I previously blogged on the basics of affirmative action on November 5, 2009. Then, on October 10, 2012, I posted two short videos of interviews on Fisher. You might find these informative.


    The purpose of the C-K Faculty Blog is to provide a forum that brings together all the rich intellectual contributions of the Chicago-Kent faculty and to encourage respectful and scholarly dialogue within the extended Chicago-Kent community, including faculty, students, alumni and colleagues at other law schools and universities. For questions or more information, contact the C-K Faculty Blog Editor by e-mail at facultyscholarship@kentlaw.iit.edu.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *