"In 2007, Chief Justice John Roberts famously declared: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." With those words, the court's conservative majority announced a "colorblind Constitution"-one that rendered race-conscious remedies presumptively unconstitutional. That vision culminated recently in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, in which the court effectively ended affirmative action in higher education by invoking the logic of colorblindness."
"...forming reasonable suspicion for an immigration stop. But the logic of Brignoni-Ponce, which provides constitutional blessing for racial profiling, is indefensible, particularly under Students for Fair Admissions. Allowing a person's ancestry or appearance to serve as a proxy for unlawful status is precisely the kind of reductionist and sweeping generalization that is anathema to "equal justice under the law" and the ideals we purport to aspire to."
Chief Justice John Roberts's 2007 call for a colorblind Constitution established a judicial framework that treats race-conscious remedies as presumptively unconstitutional. The framework culminated in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which effectively ended affirmative action in higher education by invoking the 14th Amendment's equal protection requirement against racial distinctions. In Noem v. Perdomo, the Court lifted an injunction that barred federal immigration officials in Southern California from considering race alongside language, location, and job type in detentive stops. The Court's reliance on United States v. Brignoni-Ponce permits "Mexican appearance" as a factor and thus constitutionalizes racial profiling, undermining equal justice ideals.
Read at Slate Magazine
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]