The U.S. Supreme Court made legally sound, just and decisive decisions on affirmative action and a woman's right to abortion this month. On behalf of the City of Oakland, I have supported upholding these critical rights as they wound their way through the courts.
In Fisher v. University of Texas, the high Court upheld the right of universities to consider race and ethnicity as one of a many factors in admissions; and in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, the Court struck down a Texas law that was designed to deny millions of women the right to safe and accessible reproductive health care.
In Fisher, the Court ruled four to three to reject a challenge to the admissions program of University of Texas at Austin that guarantees admission to top students from Texas public high schools, and considers many factors, including race and ethnicity, in making admission decisions for students who are not in the top tier.
The plaintiff's argument was unreasonable on its face. The plaintiff, who was rejected by the university, had no problem with the 42 white students with lower test scores or grades than hers who the university admitted. But she objected to the admission of five people of color based on her assertion that their test scores or grades were lower than hers.
I share Justice Kennedy's view that diversity is one of the "intangible qualities" that can make a university great, and that universities therefore should be able to weigh diversity in admissions.
It is axiomatic that affirmative action is essential to remedy the systemic racial inequalities and ongoing discrimination that persist in our country. Those inequalities are the direct result of hundreds of years of slavery, Jim Crow and outright exclusion of African Americans and other people of color from quality education, including at the University of Texas, which had a long history of denying students admission based on their race.
In the Texas abortion case, the justices struck down a Texas abortion access law in a 5 to 3 ruling. The high Court found that despite claims that the law's restrictions were designed to protect women's health, in reality the restrictions merely placed substantial burdens on women who are seeking to exercise their constitutional right to abortions.
"There was no significant health-related problem that the new law helped to cure," Justice Breyer wrote in the majority opinion.
Referencing the law's requirement that clinics have surgical centers onsite and that clinic doctors have admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles of their facilities, the court declared: "We agree with the District Court that the surgical-center requirement, like the admitting-privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an 'undue burden' on their constitutional right to do so."
Of course, the very purpose of Texas' law, which already has forced about half of the state's clinics to close, and left women in rural areas of the state with virtually no access to abortion services, was to preclude women from exercising their constitutional rights.
The ruling is a milestone that could signal the demise of similar laws that many states have passed in recent years to undercut and eliminate the constitutional right to an abortion. I applaud the Court for recognizing Texas' law for what it was: a transparent attempt to prevent access to health care options for millions of women.
Unfortunately, the Court missed a historic opportunity in this session to move the country forward on immigration reform.
The Court deadlocked in Texas v. United States, a lawsuit spearheaded by Republican governors to block implementation of President Obama's important 2014 executive actions on immigration. The tie means the lower court's ruling blocking the reforms stands for now.
I signed on to three amicus briefs in the federal courts on behalf of the City of Oakland supporting the President's actions, which would have offered protection from deportation and work permits to millions of immigrants who have been living in the U.S. for at least five years, have no criminal records and have a child who is a citizen or permanent resident.
The President's actions would have kept families together, strengthened local economies and improved public safety in communities across the country, to name just a few benefits.
Most importantly, the reforms would change the status quo that forces so many of our neighbors, friends and family members to live on the margins of society.
A path to citizenship for immigrant families has been a founding ideal of our country from the beginning. The President's actions honored this ideal by protecting law-abiding members of our communities who are contributing to the national good and working to make a better life for their children.
As President Obama said after the decision, immigration reform will happen. It's not a matter of if, but when.
The answer to that question depends largely on whether Americans elect a candidate in this presidential election who has promised to defend and expand President Obama's reforms, or a candidate who has built a campaign on ridiculous and offensive anti-immigrant posturing.
On immigration, abortion, affirmative action, voting rights, gun control and so many other important issues, the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice will cast votes that will affect the lives of every American for generations.
