Michigan Court: Equality Violates Equal Protection Clause
You can’t make this stuff up. Last week a liberal majority ruled that a provision of the Michigan state constitution passed in 2006 that prohibited racial preferences in college admissions was unconstitutional. Their logic? It created an unequal burden on minorities who wished to change the law by requiring them to amend the state’s constitution to do so.
You. Can’t. Make. This. Up.
By this logic, any constitutional provision creates an unconstitutional burden on groups that may wish to repeal it. In other words, it’s completely absurd.
The court voted 8-7 that making people more equal under the law violates the constitutional provision that requires people to be treated equally under the law!
The Sixth Circuit’s “logic” would similarly prevent Congress from outlawing racial preferences under federal law.
Fortunately, this crazy ruling will not long survive. The California-based Ninth Circuit has (remarkably) ruled the other way; conflict between the lower courts virtually ensures that the Supreme Court will take the case.
And don’t forget that the Court this term is already considering the propriety of racial preferences in UT-Austin’s admissions program. If the Court finds racial preferences themselves to be unconstitutional—that’s my view—then the Sixth Circuit’s ruling has no practical effect anyway.