Clock ticks toward the point when the Harvard admissions case may get to the Supreme Court

Faithful blog readers will recall our extensive coverage of the Harvard admissions case. In that case, the plaintiffs claimed that Harvard's admission criteria disfavored Asian-origin applicants. The plaintiffs lost at the lower court level and appealed. The appeal has now been rejected - see below - so the next step is the U.S. Supreme Court. Nothing requires the Supreme Court to take the case. But if it does, it could possibly rule against affirmative action in admissions. That outcome has been the objective of the plaintiffs.

California voters just rejected Prop 16's attempt to overturn Prop 209 and permit affirmative action. So, in principle, even if the Supreme Court ruled for the plaintiffs in the Harvard case, the ruling would have no impact on UC. It would, however, mean that any future attempts to put something like Prop 16 on the ballot would be precluded. But, as noted above, the Supreme Court might choose not to hear the Harvard case. One weakness in the case - and a reason for the Supreme Court not to hear it or to punt if it does - is that the plaintiffs did not include an Asian applicant to Harvard claiming to have been denied admission unfairly.

From the Wall St. Journal: A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that Harvard University didn’t violate federal civil-rights law, backing a 2019 district court decision and teeing the case up for potential review by the Supreme Court. The decision is a blow to Students for Fair Admissions, a nonprofit group that sued Harvard in 2014 alleging the school held Asian-American applicants to a higher standard in undergraduate admissions, used racial balancing and didn’t fully explore race-neutral alternatives to diversifying its student body...

Full story at https://www.wsj.com/articles/appellate-court-determines-harvard-didn-t-violate-federal-civil-rights-law-11605191351