Summary of the day
Here’s a recap of today’s developments:
The US supreme court, driven by its conservative supermajority, has ended race-conscious admissions at universities across the country. The conservative justices concluded that admissions policies at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina violated the US constitution’s equal protection clause. The court’s decision will limit the power of colleges and universities, particularly at selective institutions, to consider an applicant’s race as a factor in the admissions process.
The six conservative-leaning justices on the nine-strong court prevailed over the three liberal-leaning justices, with the newest member and first Black woman on the court, Ketanji Brown Jackson, issuing a stark dissent saying the ruling meant it would “take longer for racism to leave us”. In a majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that Harvard’s program resulted in fewer Asian American students being admitted to the university, violating the Equal Protection Clause’s standard that “race may never be used as a “negative”.
Joe Biden said he was considering executive action and will ask the Department of Education to look into ways to maintain diversity in university student bodies. The US president said “this is not a normal court” of the bench, and said “discrimination still exists in America. Today’s decision does not change that. It’s a simple fact.”
Biden also said the supreme court has “gone out of its way” to “unravel basic rights” more than any other court in recent history. In an interview on MSNBC, Biden said he found the court “so out of sorts with the basic value system of the American people”. He also admitted his polling numbers “are not good” but argued that “they were the same way when I ran and won”.
The supreme court today also bolstered the ability of people to ask for religious accommodations in the workplace. In a unanimous ruling, the court made it more difficult for an employer to turn down a worker’s request for an accommodation due to their beliefs.
The veracity of a key document in a major LGBTQ+ rights case before the supreme court has come under question, raising the possibility that important evidence cited in it might be wrong or even falsified. The supreme court is expected to issue a ruling on Friday in 303 Creative LLC v Elenis, which deals with a challenge to a Colorado law prohibiting public-serving businesses from discriminating against gay people as well as any statements announcing such a policy.
A judge has turned down Donald Trump’s attempt to dismiss the advice columnist E Jean Carroll’s original defamation lawsuit against him, and rejected his defense that presidential immunity protects him from being liable for statements he made in 2019 that Carroll claims were defamatory.
Updated
The veracity of a key document in a major LGBTQ+ rights case before the US supreme court has come under question, raising the possibility that important evidence cited in it might be wrong or even falsified.
The supreme court is expected to issue a ruling on Friday in 303 Creative LLC v Elenis, which deals with a challenge to a Colorado law prohibiting public-serving businesses from discriminating against gay people as well as any statements announcing such a policy.
The suit centers on Lorie Smith, a website designer who does not want to provide her services for gay weddings because of her religious objections.
In 2016, she says, a gay man named Stewart requested her services for help with his upcoming wedding. “We are getting married early next year and would love some design work done for our invites, placenames etc. We might also stretch to a website,” reads a message he apparently sent her through a message on her website.
In court filings, her lawyers produced a copy of the inquiry.
But Stewart, who requested his last name be withheld for privacy, said in an interview with the Guardian that he never sent the message, even though it correctly lists his email address and telephone number. He has also been happily married to a woman for the last 15 years, he said. The news was first reported by the New Republic.
In fact, until he received a call this week from a reporter from the magazine, Stewart says had no idea he was somehow tied up in a case that had made it to the supreme court.
