This transcript is automatically generated
The Supreme Court will hear a new challenge to affirmative action today.
A student says she didn't get into the University of Texas because she's white all rise prevention -- I don't know.
This -- these are the cases that captured the public's demand and yes yes they are not to -- a couple things that are very unusual about this.
The Supreme Court recently ruled in affirmative action cases involving at colleges and this case -- -- -- law school owned by state.
The case in 2003 involving the University of Michigan which is on -- -- state of Michigan.
And in a weird.
They say that charitably.
Opinion by justice O'Connor.
Let's anyway weird a second the court ruled that a state may take race into account as long as -- is just one of other factors.
When it is deciding on whether or not the whole individual.
Is worthy of admission what's weird -- -- about this.
Is the opinion is -- the law for 25 years.
-- her -- -- consensus that make justice O'Connor.
That in 25 years racial issues would not be contentious in the United States America.
And so the 2003 opinion only lasts until 2028.
Court has changed personnel are a little bit since then John Roberts has become the Chief Justice justice O'Connor was replaced by justice.
Kagan and Sotomayor have joined the court.
And now this court has decided it wants to review the exact same issue in nearly the exact same.
Factual context Charles I tell you this is almost unprecedented in American history.
That the court would hear.
A case that could potentially -- something it did.
Just eight years ago it -- the speculation is that they're going to change.
Law right to require all governments in the United States America of America to be colorblind all.
Get this straight you're saying the Supreme Court 2003 -- no -- racial quotas but yes through diversity and the university saying look.
This is going to prepare our students to be better business -- -- -- -- more divert us that holistic experience that nothing.
That is the university's argument could not of articulate -- better evacuate accumulated better than I did the university saying it's to the betterment.
Of the educational experience of the student body.
That -- have racial minorities there even to the exclusion of the whites the -- as saying you can't exclude me.
Because of an immutable characteristic of birth.
You can't exclude me because of my -- can't exclude me because of my gender.
You shouldn't be able to exclude me because of -- Or above that if their racial quota that described as its current and Zuckerberg I racial yet terminations what we're talking yes yes and instead of going to college on pure merit with respect to how hard you work what kind of -- to detain.
What you're ambitions and determination are.
How do you see -- playing up.
Well you know that's a lot of speculation.
That the Chief Justice of the United States of America John Roberts is especially after the -- -- everything team himself with certain traditionalists -- point to our good friend and colleague who because his estranged -- with them.
As a result of the Obama -- decision I'm not suggesting that the Chief Justice would mentally.
Trade off votes.
But it is very unusual that the court would take this case.
Just eight years after the Michigan case now they took it before.
He voted in the obamacare case I don't think he could have contemplated at the time they took it -- but he certainly a human being and probably is contemplating now.
And obviously this will have major major implications for businesses throughout this -- you know we thought that apparently thought the Michigan case would decide this once and for all here weary years later revisiting it again so I don't know -- this is gonna decide once and for all.
But it will give indicators as to what businesses can do yes especially businesses in which.
The government has invested.
-- that makes them subject to the restraint absolutist on the government absolutely interest judge thanks a lot we really a pleasure to what we know we just brought you know.