https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdfThe supreme court has ruled affirmative action for college admissions to be unconstitutional, a violation of the fourteenth amendment and holds this tightening of criterion to be in holding with the temporal limits of previous precedents that laid out a path for eliminating all race-based criterion, eventually.
The majority decision was penned by Roberts, with separate concurring opinions by Kavanaugh and Thomas who would go farther to strike down all kinds of race considerations, and the three liberal justices dissented.
The opinion of the court laid out that race may no longer be used as a blanket consideration, cannot be used for benefit or penalty as a condition of its own, but could still be considered for the experiences unique to an individual. As per their own examples;
Quote
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. At the same time, as all parties agree, nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. But, despite the dissent’s assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today. (A dissenting opinion is generally not the best source of legal advice on how to comply with the majority opinion.) “[W]hat cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. The Constitution deals with substance, not shadows,” and the prohibition against racial discrimination is “levelled at the thing, not the name.” A benefit to a student who overcame racial discrimination, for example, must be tied to that student’s courage and determination. Or a benefit to a student whose heritage or culture motivated him or her to assume a leadership role or attain a particular goal must be tied to that student’s unique ability to contribute to the university. In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race.