Last week, the justices chose not to temporarily prioritize matters of racial consideration in its admissions process at the U.S. Military Academy. This comes as a result of an unsigned order, rejecting the appeal from the same group that previously organized challenges against the use of affirmative action in admissions at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. The basis of their argument strives to underscore how West Point’s use of race violates the constitution. (SCOTUSblog)
The justices added a notable statement to the order; something unusual for such proceedings. In their extra commentary, they remarked that the factual record in the case was “underdeveloped,” and urged that the refusal of the proposed relief “should not be construed as expressing any view on the merits of the constitutional question.”
Back in June, the Supreme Court ruled against the admissions programs in use by Harvard and UNC, effectively overthrowing the use of affirmative action in college admissions processes. Chief Justice John Roberts clarified that the court’s opinion did not apply to service academies, citing the “potentially distinct interests that military academies may present.”
In less than three months following this, the group Students for Fair Admission took their grievances to federal court in New York challenging the practice of racial considerations in the admissions process at West Point. The academy is notable for providing about one-third of the officers in the U.S. Army and nearly half of the country’s four-star generals. The group petitioned the district court for an order that would prohibit the academy’s utilization of race as a factor in admissions during the continuation of litigation.
A ruling on Jan. 3 by U.S. District Judge Philip Halpern denied the group’s request, arguing that the real aim of the group was to force the academy to “affirmatively change and remodel” its long-established admissions process.
This development resulted in the group seeking aid from the Supreme Court. The group argued that the academy’s reliance on race is even more egregious than Harvard’s because the school “awards preferences only to three races: blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans.” The group further argued that while the case continues in the courts, the academy “will label and sort thousands more applicants based on their skin color.”
In defense of West Point, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar advocated for the sake of the academy’s current admissions process. Military leaders, according to Prelogar, have long ago concluded that diversity in the Army’s officer corps was crucial for national security. Prelogar insisted that for this to happen, West Point needs to maintain its ability to consider race in a limited way during the admissions processes. The group Students for Fair Admissions, she claimed, has not provided evidence to suggest that the decisions of the court should be dismissed, especially with regards to “a rushed preliminary posture on an incomplete record.”
The case will now resume in the lower courts, allowing the academy to continue using its existing admissions policy throughout the ongoing litigation. However, the dispute may appear again before the Supreme Court in the future. Friday’s order suggests that the academy cannot necessarily rely on a similarly positive outcome in future proceedings.