E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
"History" and History in Students for Fair Admissions
Mark Graber
Justice Clarence Thomas’s
concurring opinion in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows
of Harvard College (2023) (SFFA) demonstrates why originalism as
practiced is a vehicle for judges to import their policy preferences into constitutional
law rather than a constraint on constitutional decision making.Thomas begins with an exaggerated account
of the conventional, but mistaken wisdom that the point of the Fourteenth Amendment
was to provide constitutional foundations for the Civil Rights Act of
1866.He blithely dismisses the
consensus view among nineteenth century legal historians that Republicans were
color-conscious in favor of a colorblind account of Reconstruction that has gained no traction among professional historians. Thomas then rummages through Reconstruction
history baldly declaring Republican assertions on removing discriminations
against persons of color as demonstrating commitments to colorblindness and the many
Republican assertions on laws benefitting persons of color as exceptions to this more general principle. By this measure, we might declare that the Oakland Athletics are the best team in baseball, point to the twenty games they have won while treating their sixty losses as exceptional. If this is
objective history, we should prefer judges who make no pretense of writing
their politics into law without distorting the history we teach our students.
The opinions in SFFA
uniformly adopt the conventional, but mistaken view that the point of the
Fourteenth Amendment was to provide constitutional foundations for the Civil
Rights Act of 1866.As I demonstrate in Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (shipping next week!), the point of the Fourteenth Amendment was
to ensure loyal persons controlled the national government and the governments
of former confederate states.Proponents
of free labor and racial equality sought constitutional reform because the
unamended constitution provided former confederate states with thirty
extra seats in the House of Representatives and thirty extra votes in the
Electoral College for former slaves denied the ballot.This representational boon would enable a coalition
of former slaveholders and northern Democrats to establish the control of the
national government necessary to repeal all civil rights acts and make the
Thirteenth Amendment a nullity.Although
Thomas claims without citation that “many” proponents of racial equality had
doubts about the constitutionality of Section 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866,
Representative John Bingham of Ohio was the only person who voted for the
Fourteenth Amendment who expressed these doubts on the floor of Congress.Many Republicans expressed doubts about a
rejected version of Section 1, but there appears to be only one other Representative
who supported the Fourteenth Amendment and had constitutional doubts about the final
first paragraph of the Civil Rights Act.
Had Thomas relied
on mistaken conventional wisdom among legal historians throughout his opinion,
that would have been a feature rather than a bug.Judges are not professional historians. They are not supposed to adjudicate disputes among historians (or accept my not yet published revisionist work as authoritative, even though I and two other people think it is). Originalism constrains judges only when
justices rely on conventional wisdom among historians.When justices deviate from that conventional
wisdom, they inevitably deviate in ways that reflect their political
priors.Thomas, in particular, abandons
conventional wisdom that supports progressive outcomes.His SFFA opinion is a particularly
gruesome example.
Thomas exhibits
his disdain for history when he observes “it
appears increasingly in vogue to embrace an “antisubordination” view of the
Fourteenth Amendment: that the Amendment forbids only laws that hurt, but not
help, blacks.” This is the view of most
historians and was ably articulated by an amicus brief by legal historians
filed in SFFA. They point out that constitutional law in the 1860s did not adopt a banned category understanding of equality. Rather, government could make distinctions among different groups of citizens only when those distinctions were based on real distinctions between people (i.e., gender) and served the public interest. Republicans acted on this principle when providing special benefits to persons of color, because only persons of color had been enslaved and victims of the slave system. An objective
originalist would rely on this history, which Justice Sonia Sotomayor convincingly
discusses in her dissent. Thomas calls historians "faddish" and cites one article published in a student edited law review that takes his position.
The main alternate to this conventional wisdom does not help
Thomas.I could not sign the historian’s
brief because I believe that for most framers other than John Bingham, the
relevant constitutional provision was the Thirteenth Amendment.Reconstruction Republicans understood Section
2 of the Thirteenth Amendment as empowering Congress to eradicate slavery and
the slave system by passing legislation that enabled African-Americans to
become full citizens of the United States.Given that only African-Americans had been enslaved and that a slave
system involved substantial discrimination against free persons of color,
Congress was empowered under the Thirteenth Amendment to pass legislation that
benefitted only African-Americans who had been enslaved and persons of color
who had been victims of the slave system. The difference between those
historians who are Thirteenth Amendment revisions and the historians brief in SFFA,
however, is limited to what amendment Republicans in 1866 thought supported
remedial color-conscious legislation.The leading
contemporary legal historians who have studied Reconstruction agree that the Republicans who
framed the post-Civil War Amendments were color-conscious as well as
colorblind.
Thomas rejects
conventional history by taking the same slapdash approach to the evidence as
characterizes his majority opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol
Association v. Bruen (2022).Bruen
acknowledged many instances of state and territorial regulations banning
carrying weapons in public, but then pronounced them inconsistent with a
general rule, derived from no more sources, that persons had a right to carry
weapons in public.SFFA acknowledges
that the Congress that framed the Fourteenth Amendment passed various laws
providing special benefits to persons of color, but then concludes that these
were exceptions to the rule of colorblindness.Thomas cannot find a single instance in which a sponsor of the
Fourteenth Amendment explicitly rejected a measure providing special benefits
for persons of color on the ground that such measures were inconsistent with
constitutional commitments to equality.The practice was simple.When
Republicans prohibiting discriminations against persons
of color, they spoke the language of colorblindness.When they were considering how to help
persons of color become full citizens of the United States, they spoke the
language of color consciousness. General laws should be colorblind, but laws that have the specific purpose of transitioning former disadvantaged groups into full citizenship may acknowledge the distinctive characteristics of that group. This is
a basic confusion that historians avoid, but apparently not justices who confuse a
Supreme Court appointment with the conferral of a PhD.
Value-voting on apex courts is inevitable. History best serves as a data point than a command. Perhaps the color-conscious programs of Reconstruction outlived their usefulness a century ago. Perhaps colorblindness is the best road to full citizenship at present. These are questions for the present to answer. But we are unlikely to achieve the best answers by conjuring up an imaginary past that suits our priors and then declaring that past authoritative.