A federal judge denied a request to temporarily bar the Naval Academy from using race in its admissions process during a hearing Thursday.
Judge Richard Bennett ruled from the bench in Baltimore that Students for Fair Admissions had not sufficiently shown that its case would likely succeed against the military school.
Multiple times during the hearing, which ran more than two hours, Bennett was combative with the lawyers representing SFFA, a group whose lawsuits essentially dismantled race-conscious affirmative action in higher education earlier this year before the Supreme Court. He also called a preliminary injunction against the Naval Academy an “extraordinary remedy.”
SFFA lawyers said they may appeal the preliminary injunction, something Bennett warned against, saying there are important issues to unearth in discovery.
“This case will stop dead under the water,” Bennett said, adding that if the circuit court reverses his decision, the case will be “frozen.”
Bennett committed to putting out an opinion on the merits of the case within a week and also said he was willing to work quickly. He also seemed unwilling to toss the case over the federal government’s argument that SFFA lacked standing over its use of unnamed member plaintiffs looking to end race-based affirmative action in one of the last places it's permitted in higher education.
Key context
The anti-affirmative action group argues that the Naval Academy has “no justification for using race-based admissions” when using race in admissions is unconstitutional for all other colleges across the country. The group is suing West Point on similar grounds.
The federal government urged the judge to toss the injunction request from SFFA, which would bar the academy from using race in the middle of its admissions cycle.
Brian Boynton, principal deputy assistant attorney general, argued in a response brief filed before the hearing that SFFA was overreading the case against Harvard because the Supreme Court explicitly did not address military academies’ admissions policies. He also wrote that SFFA’s case “ignores critical differences between civilian and military universities” and does not demonstrate why it is entitled to an injunction.
The high court, in siding with SFFA against Harvard, said it could not address admissions at the schools because of “potentially distinct interests that military academies may present.”
Boynton outlined that SFFA did not identify by name any members with standing in their brief, and could not show their members would suffer irreparable harm without an injunction. He also reiterated that SFFA could not demonstrate likelihood of success because the Naval Academy’s admissions policies “serve a compelling national security interest.”
“Any alleged burden on the constitutional rights of Plaintiff’s members is far outweighed by the burden that would be created by an order from this Court requiring USNA to apply a different admissions policy in the middle of its admissions cycle,” Boynton wrote, “and countermanding the strategic judgment of the nation’s military leaders on what national security requires.”
SFFA had argued that the academy based in Annapolis is violating the Fifth Amendment, which the group says includes “an equal-protection principle that binds the entire federal government.” The group also accused the institution of engaging in racial balancing and argued the policies harm white and Asian American students’ chances of gaining admission.
0 Comments