{"id":20783,"date":"2024-08-04T16:37:16","date_gmt":"2024-08-04T20:37:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/in-print\/volume-112\/volume-112-issue-4-april-2024\/political-affirmative-action\/"},"modified":"2025-05-12T11:12:47","modified_gmt":"2025-05-12T15:12:47","slug":"political-affirmative-action","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/in-print\/volume-112\/volume-112-issue-4-april-2024\/political-affirmative-action\/","title":{"rendered":"Political Affirmative Action"},"content":{"rendered":"<p class=\"p1\"><span class=\"s1\">I<\/span>NTRODUCTION<\/p>\n<p class=\"p2\"><span class=\"s1\">In the Supreme Court\u2019s most recent affirmative action decision\u2014<i>Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (SFFA) v. President &amp; Fellows of Harvard College<\/i>\u2014the Court wrongly continued to believe that it has a role to play in determining the constitutionality of affirmative action.<span style=\"font-weight: 400\">\n\t\t<span class='js-footnote footnote'>\n\t\t\t<button type='button' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_20783_1' class='footnote_inline_btn js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-describedby='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_20783_1'>\n\t\t\t\t<sup class='footnote_inline_btn_number'>1<\/sup>\n\t\t\t\t<span id='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_20783_1' class='visually_hide'>Open footnote #1<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t<cite id='abstract_footnote_20783_1' class='footnote_content_cite js-footnote-content'>\n\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_content_number js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_20783_1' tabindex='-1'>1<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap_inner'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='visually_hide'>Footnote #1 content: <\/span><i>See <\/i>Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (SFFA) v. President &amp; Fellows of Harvard Coll., 600 U.S. 181 (2023). The Court\u2019s decision also resolved <i>Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina <\/i>(UNC), addressing a constitutional equal protection claim and Title VI statutory claim. <i>Id. <\/i>at 197\u201398. While Justice Jackson dissented in the UNC case, <i>id. <\/i>at 382 (Jackson, J., dissenting), she recused herself from the Harvard case because she had previously been a member of the Harvard Board of Overseers. <i>See id. <\/i>at 231 (Jackson, J., taking no part in the consideration or decision of the Harvard case); Jimmy Hoover, <i>Justice Jackson Steps Aside from Harvard Admissions Case<\/i>, LAW360 (July 22, 2022, 8:20 PM), https:\/\/www.law360.com\/articles\/1514456\/justice-jackson-steps-aside-from-harvard- admissions-case.\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_close_btn_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_close_btn js-footnote-close-btn' aria-label='Back to content'>close<\/button>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/cite>\n\t\t<\/span>\n\t <\/span><\/span><span class=\"s1\">Where the Constitution lacks a legal standard that is sufficiently precise to provide meaningful constraint on the exercise of judicial discretion, questions concerning proper interpretation of that standard are what <i>Marbury v. Madison <\/i>deemed to be \u201cin their nature political\u201d<span style=\"font-weight: 400\">\n\t\t<span class='js-footnote footnote'>\n\t\t\t<button type='button' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_20783_2' class='footnote_inline_btn js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-describedby='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_20783_2'>\n\t\t\t\t<sup class='footnote_inline_btn_number'>2<\/sup>\n\t\t\t\t<span id='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_20783_2' class='visually_hide'>Open footnote #2<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t<cite id='abstract_footnote_20783_2' class='footnote_content_cite js-footnote-content'>\n\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_content_number js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_20783_2' tabindex='-1'>2<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap_inner'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='visually_hide'>Footnote #2 content: <\/span>5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 170 (1803) (recognizing need to insulate executive political policymaking decisions from judicial interference).\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_close_btn_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_close_btn js-footnote-close-btn' aria-label='Back to content'>close<\/button>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/cite>\n\t\t<\/span>\n\t <\/span><\/span><span class=\"s1\">and therefore \u201conly politically examinable.\u201d<span style=\"font-weight: 400\">\n\t\t<span class='js-footnote footnote'>\n\t\t\t<button type='button' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_20783_3' class='footnote_inline_btn js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-describedby='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_20783_3'>\n\t\t\t\t<sup class='footnote_inline_btn_number'>3<\/sup>\n\t\t\t\t<span id='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_20783_3' class='visually_hide'>Open footnote #3<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t<cite id='abstract_footnote_20783_3' class='footnote_content_cite js-footnote-content'>\n\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_content_number js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_20783_3' tabindex='-1'>3<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap_inner'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='visually_hide'>Footnote #3 content: <\/span><i>Id. <\/i>at 166.\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_close_btn_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_close_btn js-footnote-close-btn' aria-label='Back to content'>close<\/button>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/cite>\n\t\t<\/span>\n\t <\/span><\/span><span class=\"s2\">\u00a0<\/span><span class=\"s1\">In such cases, the Constitution simply means what the political branches of government say it means, so there is no basis for the Supreme Court to declare a representative branch interpretation unconstitutional.<span style=\"font-weight: 400\">\n\t\t<span class='js-footnote footnote'>\n\t\t\t<button type='button' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_20783_4' class='footnote_inline_btn js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-describedby='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_20783_4'>\n\t\t\t\t<sup class='footnote_inline_btn_number'>4<\/sup>\n\t\t\t\t<span id='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_20783_4' class='visually_hide'>Open footnote #4<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t<cite id='abstract_footnote_20783_4' class='footnote_content_cite js-footnote-content'>\n\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_content_number js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_20783_4' tabindex='-1'>4<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap_inner'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='visually_hide'>Footnote #4 content: <\/span>Consistent with Occam\u2019s razor, I think that this is the most efficient way in which to conceptualize the political question doctrine for present purposes. <i>See <\/i>Brian Duignan, <i>Occam\u2019s Razor<\/i>, BRITANNICA (Jan. 2, 2024), https:\/\/www.britannica.com\/topic\/Occams-razor [https:\/\/perma.cc\/2473-R3LF] (describing the principle of Occam\u2019s razor as \u201cof two competing theories, the simpler explanation of an entity is to be preferred\u201d). However, the political question doctrine can also be understood as having considerably more complexity. <i>See, e.g.<\/i>, Louis Henkin, <i>Is There a \u201cPolitical Question\u201d Doctrine?<\/i>, 85 YALE L.J. 597, 597\u2013 601, 622\u201325 (1976); Robert F. Nagel, <i>Political Law, Legalistic Politics: A Recent History of the Political Question Doctrine<\/i>, 56 U. CHI. L. REV. 643, 643, 668\u201369 (1989); Louis Michael Seidman, <i>The Secret Life of the Political Question Doctrine<\/i>, 37 J. MARSHALL L. REV. 441, 441\u201344 (2004); Mark Tushnet, <i>Law and Prudence in the Law of Justiciability: The Transformation and Disappearance of the Political Question Doctrine<\/i>, 80 N.C. L. REV. 1203, 1203\u201306 (2002).\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_close_btn_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_close_btn js-footnote-close-btn' aria-label='Back to content'>close<\/button>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/cite>\n\t\t<\/span>\n\t <\/span><\/span><span class=\"s1\">The contemporary Supreme Court itself recognized this need for judicial deference in its 2019 <i>Rucho v. Common Cause <\/i>decision, when it declined to rule on the constitutionality of partisan gerrymandering.<span style=\"font-weight: 400\">\n\t\t<span class='js-footnote footnote'>\n\t\t\t<button type='button' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_20783_5' class='footnote_inline_btn js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-describedby='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_20783_5'>\n\t\t\t\t<sup class='footnote_inline_btn_number'>5<\/sup>\n\t\t\t\t<span id='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_20783_5' class='visually_hide'>Open footnote #5<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t<cite id='abstract_footnote_20783_5' class='footnote_content_cite js-footnote-content'>\n\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_content_number js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_20783_5' tabindex='-1'>5<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap_inner'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='visually_hide'>Footnote #5 content: <\/span>588 U.S. 684, 717\u201321 (2019).\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_close_btn_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_close_btn js-footnote-close-btn' aria-label='Back to content'>close<\/button>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/cite>\n\t\t<\/span>\n\t <\/span><\/span><span class=\"s2\">\u00a0<\/span><span class=\"s1\">Although the challengers there argued that the Equal Protection Clause made partisan gerrymandering unconstitutional, the Court held that the Equal Protection Clause\u2019s lack of judicially manageable standards was enough to render the constitutional challenge a nonjusticiable political question.<span style=\"font-weight: 400\">\n\t\t<span class='js-footnote footnote'>\n\t\t\t<button type='button' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_20783_6' class='footnote_inline_btn js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-describedby='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_20783_6'>\n\t\t\t\t<sup class='footnote_inline_btn_number'>6<\/sup>\n\t\t\t\t<span id='footnote_btn_text_abstract_footnote_20783_6' class='visually_hide'>Open footnote #6<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t<cite id='abstract_footnote_20783_6' class='footnote_content_cite js-footnote-content'>\n\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_content_number js-footnote-toggle-btn' aria-controls='abstract_footnote_20783_6' tabindex='-1'>6<\/button>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content_wrap_inner'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_content'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='visually_hide'>Footnote #6 content: <\/span><i>See id. <\/i>at 691, 717\u201319.\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<span class='footnote_close_btn_wrap'>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<button type='button' class='footnote_close_btn js-footnote-close-btn' aria-label='Back to content'>close<\/button>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/cite>\n\t\t<\/span>\n\t <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p>Continue reading <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/26\/2024\/08\/Spann_Political_Affirmative.pdf\"><em><strong>Political Affirmative Action<\/strong><\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/26\/2024\/08\/Spann_Political_Affirmative.pdf\" class=\"pdfemb-viewer\" style=\"\" data-width=\"max\" data-height=\"max\" data-toolbar=\"bottom\" data-toolbar-fixed=\"off\">Spann_Political_Affirmative<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>INTRODUCTION In the Supreme Court\u2019s most recent affirmative action decision\u2014Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (SFFA) v. President &amp; Fellows of Harvard College\u2014the Court wrongly continued to believe that it has [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":13235,"featured_media":0,"parent":20759,"menu_order":4,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"abstract.php","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"0","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":"","_tec_slr_enabled":"","_tec_slr_layout":""},"class_list":["post-20783","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"ticketed":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/20783","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/13235"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20783"}],"version-history":[{"count":19,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/20783\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23203,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/20783\/revisions\/23203"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/20759"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20783"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}