Jackson says legal colorblindness does not remove real inequality
Ketanji Brown JacksonSupreme Court justice writing a separate UNC dissent; she did not participate in Harvard
Jackson criticizes the majority's approach for disregarding race-based differences in opportunity.
“But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.”
Original text
Where this statement fits
Was the Supreme Court right to reject Harvard and UNC's race-conscious admissions programs?
The Supreme Court invalidated Harvard's and UNC's challenged admissions programs on June 29, 2023. The majority said their use of race failed equal-protection requirements. The dissents argued that the decision misunderstood equality and would deepen racial inequality in education.
Source and context
Original text
About this source
The majority, concurrences and dissents address the challenged admissions programs. Jackson participates only in the UNC case.
Archived copy (opens in a new tab)Before the quotation
She argues that inherited disadvantage matters to individualized assessment of applicants.
After the quotation
She says the ruling will hinder rather than accelerate progress toward racial equality.
How this statement is classified
The label describes this statement's response within the context above.
Why this label?
Her argument rejects the effect and reasoning of the ruling. The label remains tied to that ruling, not to her preferred admissions policy.
- Recorded on
- Published here
More from this case
Read the full caseSotomayor says the ruling entrenches racial inequality
“The Court subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection by further entrenching racial inequality in education, the very foundation of our democratic government and pluralistic society. Because the Court’s opinion is not grounded in law or fact and contravenes the vision of equality embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment, I dissent.”Read statement
Kavanaugh defends the admissions ruling through Grutter's time limit
“In light of the Constitution’s text, history, and precedent, the Court’s decision today appropriately respects and abides by Grutter’s explicit temporal limit on the use of race-based affirmative action in higher education.”Read statement
Supreme Court explains its rejection of Harvard and UNC's admissions programs
Supreme Court of the United States
“For the reasons provided above, the Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today.”Read statement
Share or embed this statement
The embed keeps its attribution link to The Dispute Index. Credit the image to The Dispute Index and link to the statement page.
Cite this record
- Publisher
- The Dispute Index
- Title
- Jackson says legal colorblindness does not remove real inequality
- First published
- Last updated
- Permalink
- https://disputeindex.com/events/6077-jackson-criticizes-the-majority-s-approach-for-disregarding
Last updated marks the most recent saved version of this published statement.
The Dispute Index. "Jackson says legal colorblindness does not remove real inequality". First published: 2026-10-19. Last updated: 2026-10-19. https://disputeindex.com/events/6077-jackson-criticizes-the-majority-s-approach-for-disregarding