The judicial branch was hard at work yesterday—the U.S. Supreme Court issued two major rulings on affirmative action and immigration, and here in Massachusetts the State Supreme Judicial Court released a decision based on the so-called “necessity defense.” So how will the decisions play out locally?
An Affirmation Of Diversity
In a 4-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court justices ruled in favor of the University of Texas to uphold the school’s affirmative action program. Abigail Noel Fisher brought the lawsuit against UT after she failed to get accepted to the university in 2008. Fisher, who is white, argued she was denied admission to the school because of her race, and that students of color with similar credentials were accepted in her stead.
The court held that “the race-conscious admissions program in use at the time of petitioner’s application is lawful under the Equal Protection Clause.”
Northeastern University law professor and WGBH News legal correspondent Daniel Medwed called the court’s decision “surprising”:
Many folks thought it would cut 4-3 the other way. Why? Because of Justice Kennedy—that long-standing swing-vote on the court. He has a past pattern in voting against affirmative action, most notably against the prominent 2003 case called Gruder, in which he was in the dissent when the majority was found in favor of a race-conscious admissions program at the University of Michigan.
But Justice Kennedy did not vote against the University of Texas. Instead, Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated that universities can consider an array of “qualities which are incapable of objective measurements but which make for greatness” when making admission decisions.
And diversity is one of those qualities.
Fisher v. University of Texas is likely to have a lasting effect on admission policies—especially in Boston, home to many schools that take race into account when making admission decisions. Medwed said the court’s decision is a welcome ruling for those schools that see a homogeneous student body as a bad thing:
This decision validates, or reinforces current admission practices because in the aftermath of that 2003 Gruder decision, which basically forbid racial quotas in admissions in favor of a more holistic approach, many schools adopted a plan like that of Texas … so a really good decision, a victory for affirmative action and for racial diversity on college campuses.
Tufts University, Harvard University and MIT were among the schools that came out in support of UT.
Immigration Reform Struck Down
The other big item on the U.S. Supreme Court’s docket was immigration reform—but unlike affirmative action, the court split when it considered whether President Barack Obama had the authority to shield illegal immigrants from deportation.
“The court simply said that it was equally divided on the question,” Medwed said.
The president’s proposed Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents bill would’ve allowed an estimated 3.9 million people to remain in the U.S. Under the action, parents of U.S. citizens and Green Card holders would’ve been granted work permits, as well as undocumented immigrants who had arrived in the U.S. when they were children.
With the deadlock, a lower court injunction that blocks the administration from issuing work permits to illegal residents remains—and puts an estimated 45,000 Massachusetts residents at risk of deportation. Medwed explained the risk that may soon await undocumented immigrants in the state:
I don’t think [deportation] is immediate, because this case has gone back to the lower courts, the Obama administration will probably respond by tweaking the plan, and that will in turn spark a whole new series of legal challenges. But there is now a very real risk of deportation for a number of people who would’ve been eligible under this program.
Let There Be Warmth
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled yesterday that a homeless man who trespassed onto property this winter in order to seek shelter from harsh weather should not be convicted of his crime based on the “necessity defense”:
The necessity defense goes a little bit like this: You can commit a crime, but if in the process of doing it you avoid something worse, a greater evil so to speak, you might be exonerated. The classic example I like to talk about with my students is someone who steals food during a famine in order to avoid near-certain starvation. Yes, the person committed the crime of theft; but they did so in order to avoid a much worse fate.
By citing necessity defense, the SJC made a strong ruling in favor of the state’s homeless population. But it’s still unclear if the case will set a major precedent for future lawsuits involving homeless people in Massachusetts.
It’s important to remember that the Supreme Judicial Court only said that [the defendant] was entitled to a ‘necessity instruction’—not that the necessity defense was actually viable or valid here, just that the jury should’ve been able to consider it. So its precedential value may or may not be significant.
