Prom
Backed by
The Supreme Court refused to hear cases on college admissions, gender identity, and gun rights. Conservative justices criticized the court for not addressing important social issues.
Written by Adam Liptak
Providing updates from
On Monday, the Supreme Court decided not to hear cases related to admissions policies, gender identity, and gun control, leading to disagreements among conservative justices. This indicates that there may be divisions within the court about when to address important issues that were not resolved by previous decisions.
The situations included legal disputes over the admissions processes at three prestigious public schools in Boston, a school district in Wisconsin’s policy regarding informing parents about students’ gender transitions, and a gun law in Hawaii.
The four conservative justices expressed in their dissents and statements that the court needs to address issues related to race-conscious admissions in higher education, the Second Amendment, and upcoming cases such as the one on gender transition care for minors. They believe that the court should work more quickly in resolving these important legal questions.
The court, as usual, did not provide explanations for its decision not to review all three cases.
The situation in Boston was similar to a case in Virginia that was rejected by the court in February. In both cases, parents were questioning changes made to the admissions criteria at public schools that did not explicitly consider race in an attempt to increase diversity among students. The legality of these indirect efforts remains uncertain following the court’s decision last year, which invalidated the admissions plans at Harvard and the University of North Carolina in the case Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College.
In Boston, the criteria for admissions to schools were changed from being based on grades and test scores to being based on grades by ZIP code. This change resulted in an increase in the percentage of Black students from 14 percent to 23 percent, while the percentage of white students decreased from 40 percent to 31 percent.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., along with Justice Clarence Thomas, disagreed with the majority opinion. Alito argued that the school’s plan was essentially a form of racial balancing and therefore violated the constitution.
We are currently experiencing difficulties in accessing the content of the article.
To access this website’s full functionality, make sure to activate
We appreciate your understanding as we confirm your access. If you are currently in Reader mode, please log out and sign in to your Times account, or consider subscribing to access all of The Times’ content.
We appreciate your understanding as we confirm access.
Are you currently a member? Sign in.
Looking to access all content from The Times? Sign up for a
Prom
Index of Website
Navigation for Website Information