The Biden administration on Tuesday responded to a request by a student group seeking to block race-based admissions practices at the U.S. Military Academy, telling the Supreme Court not to block affirmative action policies at the school.
U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, arguing on behalf of the Justice Department and West Point, told the justices that a “diverse officer corps is necessary for an effective fighting force,” adding that such diversity requires a “limited consideration” of race in selecting cadets at the academy.
“For more than forty years, our Nation’s military leaders have determined that a diverse Army officer corps is a national-security imperative and that achieving that diversity requires limited consideration of race in selecting those who join the Army as cadets at the United States Military Academy at West Point,” Prelogar wrote.
The government’s filing is in response to last week’s request from Students For Fair Admissions, or SFFA, the group that sued and succeeded at dismantling affirmative action in college applications last year at the Supreme Court.
SFFA, led by conservative legal strategist Edward Blum, asked the justices on Friday to block West Point from considering race in its admissions process, saying that military academies should follow the same standard set by the justices in its 6-3 decision against Harvard University‘s race-based practices.
The request comes as the application deadline for West Point’s class of 2028 is approaching on Jan. 31. SFFA argued that justices should decide the dispute by that deadline.
“West Point awards preferences to only three races: blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans,” the group’s petition said. “They cannot use race as a negative, lack an endpoint, stereotype, deploy arbitrary categories, or pursue interests that courts can’t reliably measure.”
SFFA went to federal court in New York in September, asking a district court judge to enter an order that would temporarily block the school from considering race while the litigation process continued.
U.S. District Judge Philip Halpern denied that request, saying that what SFFA was actually seeking was to require military academies to “affirmatively change and remodel” an admissions process that has been in place for decades. The judge also said that the student group could not show a likelihood to prevail, a key component to obtaining temporary relief.
Prelogar said that SFFA’s petition relies “almost exclusively on this Court’s decision in Harvard, invoking it dozens of times and insisting that West Point’s admissions policies do not satisfy the standards the Court articulated for civilian colleges.”
But SFFA’s arguments “ignore” what the Supreme Court decided in the Harvard v. SFFA case, Prelogar added, saying that decision “did not address” military academies. “Instead, the Court emphasized the ‘potentially distinct interests that military academies may present,’” Prelogar said.
When the high court struck down affirmative action policies at private and state schools last summer in its 6-3 ruling, it provided a footnote in the opinion noting military academies were not part of the case.
“No military academy is a party to these cases, however, and none of the courts below addressed the propriety of race-based admissions systems in that context. This opinion also does not address the issue, in light of the potentially distinct interests that military academies may present,” the footnote read.
Since SFFA’s landmark win at the high court, several conservative legal groups have said the ruling extends far beyond the scope of academia and that other policies, such as corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, should also face litigation for refusal to revise such policies.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Blum’s student group is also taking on affirmative action policies at the U.S. Naval Academy. In November, U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett denied a temporary request by his group to bar the Annapolis-based military school from ceasing its race-based admissions.