Historical Context of the 14th Amendment
The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, aimed to extend equal protection under the law to all citizens, regardless of background. It marked a significant step in ensuring constitutional rights for those previously enslaved.
The Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873 initially limited the amendment's scope, narrowly interpreting its protections. However, the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education case challenged segregation in schools, relying on the 14th Amendment to argue against separate but equal policies. This decision catalyzed the Civil Rights Movement and began dismantling Jim Crow laws in the South.
In recent years, President Trump's executive order sought to align with the amendment's original meaning by revoking certain affirmative action policies. This action echoes Chief Justice John Roberts' view that ending discrimination requires ceasing race-based decisions. Trump's appointment of three originalist justices during his term has reinforced this interpretation on the Supreme Court.
Trump's Executive Order and Its Legal Basis
President Trump's executive order revoking certain affirmative action policies aims to align governmental actions with the original intent of the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This order seeks to end race-based considerations in policy, reflecting an originalist interpretation of equal protection under the law.
The order is grounded in the belief that the 14th Amendment calls for non-discrimination, treating all individuals equally regardless of race or other immutable characteristics. This approach aligns with Chief Justice John Roberts' advocacy for a colorblind Constitution and recent Supreme Court rulings that have limited racial preferences in educational admissions.
The current originalist majority on the Supreme Court, established during Trump's presidency, favors interpretations that adhere closely to the Constitution's original meaning. This judicial philosophy supports the executive order's aim to ensure that government policies and programs operate without racial considerations, in line with constitutional principles of equality.
Impact on Institutions and Policies
President Trump's executive order challenges race-based admissions policies at institutions like Harvard, prompting a reevaluation of practices to align with the 14th Amendment's original intent of equal protection. Universities may need to revise their admissions criteria to meet the directive's demand for non-discriminatory practices.
Key entities enforcing this policy shift include:
- The Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice
- The Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education
These entities will oversee compliance with the new order and address any legal challenges that arise.
While some institutions may question the order's alignment with past interpretations of civil rights laws, it stands on solid constitutional grounds, supported by recent Supreme Court rulings favoring an originalist reading of the 14th Amendment. This shift represents a constitutional recalibration, urging institutions to adhere more closely to the principle of equality without preference or prejudice.
Supreme Court's Role in Affirmative Action
The Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in shaping affirmative action policies since the 1978 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke case. This landmark decision allowed race to be considered as a factor in university admissions to foster diversity, while prohibiting racial quotas.
In 2023, the Court made a significant ruling that ended the consideration of race in college admissions, marking a return to the original spirit of the 14th Amendment. This decision reflects the influence of the Court's originalist majority, which seeks to interpret the Constitution based on its meaning at the time of enactment.
Chief Justice John Roberts has been instrumental in this shift, championing a "colorblind" interpretation of the Constitution. His perspective, that ending discrimination requires ceasing to discriminate based on race, aligns with recent Court opinions and President Trump's executive order.
The Court's evolving stance on affirmative action demonstrates the impact of judicial philosophy on American legal landscapes and reinforces a commitment to constitutional integrity in matters of equality and non-discrimination.
Future Challenges and Legal Landscape
President Trump's executive order is likely to face legal challenges from institutions invested in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. However, the order's foundation in the original meaning of the 14th Amendment provides a strong constitutional defense, supported by the Supreme Court's originalist majority.
Institutions will need to recalibrate their strategies to ensure compliance with the reinforced commitment to constitutional equality. This may inspire new approaches to promoting diversity that do not rely on racial categorization, focusing instead on factors such as:
- Socioeconomic status
- Geographic diversity
- Individual talents
The Civil Rights Division and the Office of Civil Rights will enforce the order, ensuring that federal funding and institutional policies reflect non-discriminatory practices. This shift prompts a reexamination of DEI-related legal frameworks across various sectors.
As the legal discourse surrounding DEI and affirmative action continues, it will shape the educational and socio-political landscape, guiding the nation toward practices that pursue diversity in harmony with constitutional principles of equality.
The 14th Amendment's journey reflects America's ongoing commitment to equality and constitutional integrity. This dialogue, rooted in original intent, continues to shape our understanding of justice and fairness in our constitutional republic. How will future interpretations of the amendment impact the nation's pursuit of equal protection under the law?
- Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
- Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)
- Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (1964)
- Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. ___ (2023)