>>> A BOMBSHELL DECISION BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AS THEY STRUCK DOWN DECADES LONG PRESIDENTS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION.

THE RULING THAT FELL ALONG THE IDEOLOGICAL LINES MEANS COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES CAN NO LONGER TAKE RACE INTO CONSIDERATION IN ADMISSIONS.

JOINING US TO BREAK DOWN THE DECISION OR A PARTNER AND CLERK FOR JUSTICE KENNEDY, AND THE PROFESSOR OF LAW AND ASSOCIATE DEAN OF RESOURCE AT NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

TO CLARIFY , EXPLAIN WHAT YOU AND YOUR FIRM'S RELATIONSHIP IS .

>> I AM A PARTNER IN AN APPELLATE PRACTICE AND MY COLLEAGUES FILED A BRIEF IN THE SUPREME COURT ON BEHALF OF INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION.

>> WHAT WAS THE ARGUMENT IN THIS CASE AND WHAT DID THEY DECIDE >> THE STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSION CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE ADMISSIONS POLICY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AND HARVARD.

THEY ALLEGED THEY VIOLATED THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE 14th AMENDMENT AND TITLE VI OF -- THE UNIVERSITIES SAID THEY WERE CONSISTENT WITH THE SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT, INCLUDING A 2003 DECISION.

THE DECISION IN QUESTION TODAY BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE INTERPRETS THESE TO NOT PERMIT RACIAL CLASSIFICATION TO BE USED, FOR THE SAKE OF RACE.

>> HERE IS A BIT OF THE PRESIDENT'S REACTION.

>> WE NEED TO KEEP AN OPEN DOOR OF OPPORTUNITIES.

WE NEED TO REMEMBER THAT DIVERSITY IS OUR STRENGTH.

WE HAVE TO FIND A WAY FORWARD .

WE NEED TO REMEMBER THAT THE PROMISE OF AMERICA IS BIG ENOUGH FOR EVERYONE TO SUCCEED.

>> IS DIVERSITY A JUSTIFICATION FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION?

>> ACCORDING TO THE COURT'S RULING, THEY DID NOT EXPLICITLY SAY THAT WE WILL OVERRULE THE PRIOR CASES .

IN A LOT OF WAYS, THE DECISION WAS EXTREMELY NARROW.

IT FOCUSED ON THE PARTICULAR ADMISSIONS POLICIES .

IT IS IMPORTANT THE COURT EMPHASIZED THOSE POLICIES POTENTIALLY MAY RAISE THE DETERMINING FACTOR IN WHETHER OR NOT SOMEBODY SUBMITTED -- THE COURT FOCUSED ON WHAT I THINK OF AS THE DIVERSITY STANDARD.

IN ORDER TO GET THROUGH THE SCRUTINY , THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD , THE PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES HAVE TO FOLLOW , THEY HAVE TO APPROVE THEIR CONSIDERATION TO RACE AFFECTING THE UNIVERSITY, BUT THEY CANNOT HAVE A NUMERICAL OUTPUT BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE COURT SAYS IS A QUOTE OF WHICH IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

WHAT THIS DECISION DO , THE COURT SAID, YOU CAN STILL THINK ABOUT INDIVIDUALS AND STILL , IF SOMEBODY HAS A PERSONAL STATEMENT IN THE ADMISSION, HERE IS HOW I OVERCAME RACISM , YOU CAN STILL CONSIDER THAT.

THE COURT ALSO , THE OPINION DOES NOT TOUCH PIPELINE PROGRAMS TO ENSURE THAT AN APPLICANT WHO IS ROBUST , REFLECTS THE DIVERSITY OF OUR COUNTRY IS WHAT COMES INTO THE ADMISSION OFFICE.

>> ON HER DEFENSE, JUSTICE JACKSON WRITES, WOULD LET THEM EAT CAKE OBLIVIOUSNESS TODAY, THE MAJORITY PULLED THE REPORT AND ANNOUNCES COLORBLINDNESS FOR OUR BY FIAT.

IT DOES NOT MAKE IT SO IN LIFE.

IT SAYS THE COURT HAS BEEN INTERFERING WITH THE CRUCIAL WORK INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING ARE DOING TO SOLVE AMERICA'S REAL-WORLD PROBLEMS.

HOW MIGHT THIS RULING TODAY APPLIED OUTSIDE OF EDUCATION , IN OTHER SECTORS ?

>> TWO BIG QUESTIONS, ONE, HOW THIS DECISION APPLIES TO UNIVERSITY ADMISSIONS GOING FORWARD.

THE COURT HELD THAT RACE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR THE SAKE OF RACE, BUT THERE IS SOME AMBIGUITY , PARTICULARLY IN THE LAST TWO PARAGRAPHS WHERE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SAID , THE OPINION SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS PROHIBITING UNIVERSITIES FROM CONSIDERING THE APPLICANT'S DISCUSSION OF HOW RACE AFFECTED THEIR LIFE , BE IT THIS COMMISSION OR OTHERWISE.

DESPITE THE ASSERTION TO THE CONTRARY, UNIVERSITIES MAY NOT ESTABLISH APPLICATIONS OR OTHER MEANS -- THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS THAT WILL NEED TO BE FIGURED OUT GOING FORWARD.

SOME OF THOSE SAME QUESTIONS EXIST OUTSIDE THE UNIVERSITY ADMISSIONS SETTINGS , WHICH WILL BE FOR LOWER COURTS TO DETERMINE THAT OPINION.

>> WHAT IMPACT DO YOU THINK IT WILL HAVE ON STUDENTS WHO ARE APPLYING TO THESE INSTITUTIONS?

MAYBE STUDENTS COULD WRITE ABOUT THEIR OWN RACE IN ENTRANCE EXAMS.

IS THAT THE ONLY WAY FOR THAT TO COME UP ?

WHAT IF STUDENTS DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE RACE IN AN ESSAY?

>> THAT IS ALREADY AN ISSUE TO SOME EXTENT.

JUSTICE SOUTER , THERE ARE GENUINE SOCIAL QUESTIONS ABOUT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN EVERYBODY'S LIFE.

SOME PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE RACE IN AN APPLICATION I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT CHANGES.

TWO THINGS CHANGE, NUMBER ONE, IN THE COUNTRIES MOST ELITE INSTITUTIONS, IT WILL BE DIFFICULT TO DO WHAT I THINK THE WORK THEY HAVE BEEN DOING IN, TO BE PERFECTLY BLUNT , MAKING IT THE CASE FOR CONTRIBUTING , PEOPLE OTHER THAN THOSE WHO HAVE TRADITIONALLY BEEN TAUGHT BY THE MOST POWERFUL AND INFLUENTIAL ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, AND POLITICAL CLASSES.

THEY COME FROM A DIFFERENT BACKGROUND.

THE OTHER THING TO WORRY ABOUT , FRANKLY, IS THE MESSAGE THIS SENDS TO STUDENTS WHO APPLY TO SCHOOLS.

WILL STUDENTS AND APPLICANTS EXPERIENCE THE SUPREME COURT SAYING , WE DON'T VALUE INCLUDING YOU IN OUR ECONOMIC LIFE.

>> I WANT TO GET TO THE LAST POINT, THE JUSTICES EXEMPTED MILITARY ACADEMIES FROM THIS BAND ON RACE CONSCIOUSNESS, WHAT IS THE ARGUMENT?

>> YES, THEY SEE THAT AS A DIFFERENT INSTITUTION.

THE SAME ANALYSIS, INCLUDING , THE PLUS FACTORS, THEY DO NOT