The multiple opinions in #FairvHarvard run to over 200 pages altogether. I’m not trying to analyze them all or any in exhaustive detail. Fundamentally: the majority adopts an ahistorical, formalistic, “color-blind” reading of the #EqualProtectionClause of the #14thAmendment, and the dissenters assert an interpretation rooted in facts, past and present, about race, subordination, and #democracy in the U.S. 2/

The majority detaches the #14thA from its history, maintaining that it forbids almost all recognition of race in government or government-funded decisions. #JohnRoberts, for the majority, claims that there is no compelling interest in racially diverse student bodies in institutions of higher education. 3/ #FairvHarvard

The lead dissent, by #SoniaSotomayor, demonstrates that the history of the #14thA shows that Americans, including those that wrote and ratified the amendment, have always known that race in the U.S. sets up a caste system in support of #WhiteSupremacy. As Sotomayor writes “Ignoring race will not equalize a society that is racially unequal. What was true in the 1860s, and again in 1954, is true today: Equality requires acknowledgment of inequality.” #FairvHarvard #LawFedi 4/

For those interested in the #history of the #14thA and its role in #Reconstruction, Sotomayor’s dissent does a good job of explaining the “race-conscious” programs and policies the #14thA justified, such as the #FreedmensBureau. Sotomayor explains how programs like affirmative action in higher education continue this heritage, promoting full democratic participation by those who have been excluded because of their race. 5/ #FairvHarvard #LawFedi

In his opinion for the majority, #JohnRoberts maintains that #FairvHarvard does not overrule #GruttervBollinger, the relatively recent #SupremeCourt decision holding that race may be a consideration in higher education admissions. Roberts argues that Fair is merely implementing Grutter. Sotomayor is particularly good in her rebuttal, quoted in next post in this thread. 6/