This is Garrison Hardie with your CrossPolitic Daily News Brief for Friday, June 30th, 2023. 
 
Page50 ad read concepts:
Page50 is a distinctly Christian marketing company striving to help Christian-owned businesses grow and succeed in our digital age. They don’t want to just make a paycheck, they want to 
change the world, and that means building it alongside you.
 
The mission is bigger than just Sunday. Page50 wants to help Christians recapture the work week, economic and political influence, and the public square. 
 
Page50 doesn’t work with just anybody, but if you’re a believer they want to work with you. Visit pagefifty.com (ya gotta spell it out, because i don’t own the page50.com domain) and see what they can do for you. That’s pagefifty.com.
 
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/supreme-court-affirmative-action-race-conscious-college-admissions
 
Supreme Court bans affirmative action in ruling against race-conscious college admissions
 
The Supreme Court ruled to ban the consideration of race as part of admissions decisions at colleges, including Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, ending the decadeslong practice known as affirmative action.
 
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the six-member majority to undo the lasting impacts of the landmark 1978 case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, which upheld race-conscious admissions at universities.
 
"Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment," the majority held in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.
 
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented and was joined by Justice Elena Kagan. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in the UNC case, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan. Jackson recused herself from the Harvard case due to her past service on the university board.
 
Justices have been mulling since November over two cases brought by the nonprofit group Students for Fair Admissions, headed by conservative legal strategist Edward Blum, a staunch critic of affirmative action policies.
 
The majority held that "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."
 
Justice Clarence Thomas added that he would "highly doubt" universities could carry on with considering race in admissions policies with the new test that was established Thursday.
 
“In the future, universities wishing to discriminate based on race in admissions must articulate and justify a compelling and measurable state interest based on concrete evidence. Given the strictures set out by the Court, I highly doubt any will be able to do so."
 
During oral arguments in October 2022, the court's inclination to ban affirmative action was evident. The court's six conservatives expressed skepticism toward the practice, even as attorneys for Harvard and UNC, along with U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, implored the court to permit the practice to continue.
 
Another case filed in 2014 alleged the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill unlawfully discriminates against white and Asian American applicants. That suit accused the university of violating the Constitution's 14th Amendment promise of equal protection under the law.
 
Banning the use of affirmative action will force elite colleges to reinvent their policies and find new ways to ensure diversity in their student populations without using race as a consideration. Several universities have expressed concerns in legal briefs that a decision to overturn affirmative action could result in fewer minority students on campuses.
 
But ahead of the high court's opinion release, legal experts