Abstract
In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (SFFA), the Supreme Court held that affirmative action programs designed to comply with the precedent set in Grutter v. Bollinger were unlawful. Yet the Court nowhere said that it was overruling Grutter and, in fact, relied on Grutter as authority. Neither the Justices themselves nor subsequent commentators have been able to agree on what, if anything, remains of Grutter today. Did SFFA overrule Grutter or not? This Essay analyzes that question and its normative fallout. The Essay concludes that SFFA at least partially overruled Grutter and that the Court’s failure to acknowledge as much should trouble us. What exactly is left of Grutter will be a question for future parties to litigate and for lower courts to resolve as they struggle to apply SFFA’s opaque reasoning.
Original language | English (US) |
---|---|
Journal | 99 Notre Dame L. Rev. Reflection 113 (2023) |
State | Published - Aug 29 2023 |
Externally published | Yes |
Keywords
- Precedent
- SFFA v. Harvard
- affirmative action
- obstructing precedent
- stealth overruling
- legal philosophy