Michael Barone

This has been a big week for the Supreme Court. In four separate cases, it applied stricter scrutiny to racial quotas and preferences in higher education, overturned part of the Voting Rights Act, ruled unconstitutional the Defense of Marriage Act and dismissed an appeal of a case overturning California voters' ban on same-sex marriage.

At the same time, it pointedly declined to declare that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

There were victories and setbacks here for political and cultural conservatives and for political and cultural liberals.

Only one of the four cases was decided by the familiar 5-4 split between supposedly conservative and supposedly liberal justices. In the other three, as often this year, there were different lineups.

The common thread I see is that this is a court that has mostly tried to keep the three branches of the federal government and the states from interfering with each other.

This was arguably true in Fisher v. University of Texas, the case on racial preferences in college and university admissions. The decision was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who had dissented from the 2003 decision allowing quotas.

But Kennedy declined to rule them out altogether, as Justice Clarence Thomas urged. Rather, Kennedy said courts should apply "strict scrutiny" to preferences that must be "narrowly tailored," as he argued in his 2003 dissent.

Justice Stephen Breyer, in the majority then, agreed with this narrowing, forming a 7-1 majority. Only Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented.

Fisher may discourage schools from employing racial quotas, and it could lead them to consider giving preferences to disadvantage applicants not classified as black or Hispanic. That could result in less litigation.

The court did strike down a federal law in Shelby County v. Holder, Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. That provision requires certain states and localities, based on low black turnout in elections between 1964 and 1972 (mostly but not all in the South), to get pre-clearance of any election law changes from the federal Justice Department.

The criteria make no sense today and Congress should write new ones, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. The problem is that today, black turnout rates are higher than white ones in Mississippi, while the state where they lag farthest behind is Massachusetts.

So Congress may not be able to come up with new criteria. That would mean less federal interference with the states. Individuals and the Justice Department can still sue to stop racial discrimination in voting where it exists under Section 2.


Michael Barone

Michael Barone, senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner (www.washingtonexaminer.com), is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor and a co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. To find out more about Michael Barone, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com. COPYRIGHT 2011 THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER. DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM