Affirmative Action after yesterday's Supreme Court Fisher Decision:

Here is a variety of views from a range of sources:

• As Fisher Churened, Conversations about Campus Diversity Evolved
• Race Conscious Admissions Policies Just Got Easier to Defend
• Fisher in Context; Making Sense of the Decision
• Supreme Court Upholds Consideration of Race

Here's what I have to add:

Q 9:21 Does the government contractor’s affirmative action obligation place it in a dilemma?

Many federal contractors, as well as universities receiving federal funds, feel hooked on the horns of the affirmative action dilemma. The dilemma is posed by the mixed signals from Washington, as well as some state governments, concerning what contractors can and cannot do. Loss managers on many college campuses are deliberating over it.

In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Grutter v. Bollinger [539 U.S. 982 (2003)] that a diverse student body is a legitimate consideration when making admissions decisions. This news led not only to admissions policies according weight to race and ethnicity, but also to speculation about—and some implementation of—faculty search policies that embodied an analogous principle with regard to race and ethnicity of the faculty.

A backlash against Grutter has quietly gained momentum. In November 2006, Michigan passed a constitutional amendment essentially intended to neutralize Grutter on the state's public university campuses. On December 4, 2006, the Supreme Court revisited its 2003 ruling, hearing oral arguments in two cases in which the plaintiffs were challenging their states’ attempts to inject Grutter's principles in the K-12 environment. Louisville and Seattle parents asked the Supreme Court to revisit its landmark affirmative action decision and declare that school district schemes to consider race in making school assignments are unconstitutional.

“In the November 2006 election, 58 percent of Michigan's voters approved a proposal that amended the state Constitution. The amendment banned discrimination, or the granting of preferential treatment, in public education, government contracting and public employment based on race, sex, ethnicity or national origin.” [http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/03/31/Under-the-US-Supreme-Court-Do-cases-sound-death-knell-for-affirmative-action/UPI-84731364715000/#ixzz2Ra7PV3Eq] In March 2013 the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to the legality under the U.S. Constitution of this state constitution amendment. And, on June 24, 2013, the Court ruled 7-1 in a case involving the University of Texas admissions policies, that the school's preferential admissions policy could stand, if on remand UT could prove a need under the very difficult “strict scrutiny” standard.

[Fisher v. University of Texas, 133 S. Ct. 2411 (2013)]

On April 22, 2014, the Court held that “no authority in the United States Constitution would allow the judiciary to set aside an amendment to the Michigan Constitution prohibiting affirmative action in public education, employment, and contracting.”

[Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 134 S. Ct. 1623 (2014)]

The Supreme Court has again granted certiorari and the case remains pending.  Oral arguments were again heard in December 2015.  Then, in the spring 2016, Justice Scalia died suddenly and unexpectedly in his sleep, while the Court’s decision remained pending.  With Justice Kagan recused from the case due to her prior involvement as the U.S. Solicitor General, a seven-Justice Court voted on June 23, 2016 to endorse UT-Austin’s admissions policy on the grounds that it passed the strict-scrutiny test earlier enunciated by the Court and did not offend the U.S. Constitution.

Source: Employment Law Answer Book (9th Edition, 2016)