Get the latest Syracuse news delivered right to your inbox.
Subscribe to our newsletter here.

This summer, the United States Supreme Court is set to issue decisions on several cases which could directly impact Syracuse University — most notably a potential overturning of affirmative action.

The court will also determine the constitutionality of President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan and Indigenous sovereignty regarding childhood adoptions. The Daily Orange broke down the upcoming decisions and what they could mean for the SU community.

Affirmative action

The Supreme Court in June will release decisions for two cases — Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina — which could effectively ban affirmative action, a race-conscious admissions policy that allows colleges and universities to consider race in admissions processes. Gretchen Ritter — SU’s vice chancellor, provost and chief academic officer — said only the decision in the SFFA v. Harvard case directly impacts SU due to the university being a private institution.

In 2014, SFFA filed the two lawsuits against Harvard and UNC claiming that their admissions policies violated the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protections Clause and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn affirmative action would overrule its 2003 ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger, which allowed race to be considered alongside other factors as part of a “holistic” approach in application reviews.

Ritter and Allen Groves, SU’s senior vice president and chief student experience officer, said the university is preparing for the case’s outcome. The Supreme Court could come to a range of decisions such as prohibiting students from identifying race or ethnicity on applications but allowing applicants to mention race and ethnicity in essays if appropriate. The court could also prohibit any consideration of race or ethnicity in admission decisions or bar race-conscious programs even outside of university admissions.

The Supreme Court may rule to uphold Grutter v. Bollinger, allowing colleges and universities to maintain consideration of race and ethnicity in admissions. Ritter said SU will maintain its commitment to diversity in the admissions process regardless of the ruling.

“(Diversity has) been a huge part of our strength, and it’s part of what I think all of us are proud of about this institution,” Ritter said. “We will continue to pursue something that’s so core to our values and has been so core to our success.”

Arlo Stone | Digital Design Director

Ritter said university administrators began working months ago in anticipation of how the pending decisions could impact admissions, enrollment and financial aid. She said she and Groves discussed preparations with various groups, like the heads of diversity for SU’s schools and colleges, members of the University Senate and alumni.

SU has established three working groups regarding the case: admissions and legal strategy, post-admissions and communications as well as stakeholder engagement. The university has also conducted research on strategies employed by higher educational institutions in states with existing bans on race-conscious admissions like Florida, California and Arizona, Groves said.

“What we have tried to do … is to get out to as many groups as we can, and talk to them about the fact that ‘here’s what’s at stake, here’s what’s coming, here’s what we’re doing proactively to be prepared for it,’” Groves said.

Groves said the university could deploy several legally permissible options regarding its admissions process moving forward — including targeting recruitment toward students who are from first-generation or low-income backgrounds — which the Supreme Court’s decision wouldn’t impact.

During the Student Association’s April 17 meeting, outgoing Student Association President David Bruen and Vice President Adia Santos announced that SA would create an Affirmative Action Student Advisory Council to work with university administration to prepare for the court’s decision. The advisory council will most likely begin working with administration once the decision is released in June, Groves said.

Student loan forgiveness

The Supreme Court is expected to determine the constitutionality of President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan in June. If upheld, the plan could result in the forgiveness of up to $400 billion in student loans.

Biden’s current plan would provide up to $20,000 in loan forgiveness for Pell Grant recipients while other students can receive up to $10,000 in forgiveness. Individuals making less than $125,000 annually and married couples making less than $250,000 annually would be considered eligible for loan relief under the plan.

Justices will issue rulings on whether the DOE overstepped its legal authority in U.S. Department of Education v. Brown and if the six states who filed lawsuits against Biden’s loan forgiveness plan can constitutionally do so in Biden v. Nebraska.

Both cases look to challenge the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003, or the HEROES Act, which lists out the Secretary of Education’s powers in the wake of a national emergency.

Under the HEROES Act, the secretary of education has the authority to waive or modify student financial assistance program requirements as deemed necessary. Requirements can only be changed or waived if a person either lives or works in an area labeled a “disaster area” by any federal, state or local official in connection with a national emergency. Then-President Donald Trump in March 2020 declared a national emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which Biden extended in February 2022 for another year.

During oral arguments in February 2022, conservative justices questioned the forgiveness plan’s legality through the major questions doctrine. The doctrine claims the Supreme Court could reject regulatory authority if Congress has not “clearly empowered” federal government agencies with authority in situations involving “vast political and economic significance.”

If ruled constitutional, the plan could also impact students by mitigating the financial burden of rising tuition costs at SU.

Indigenous sovereignty

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in November 2022 about the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act, which prioritizes the adoption of an Indigenous child by either a blood relative or citizen of an Indigenous tribe over a non-Indigenous family.

Justices will rule on whether ICWA violates the U.S. Constitution’s 10th amendment over potential federal overreach in child placement and discriminates against non-Indigenous families.

Then-President Jimmy Carter signed the ICWA into law to counteract decades-long efforts to attack Indigenous sovereignty by breaking up Indigenous families and removing their children to non-tribal public and private agencies, SU’s Director of Native American and Indigenous Studies and Akwesasne Mohawk Nation member Scott Stevens told the D.O. in November.

Prior to ICWA’s passing, states allowed non-Indigenous families to adopt Indigenous children if the state determined that Indigenous communities were considered “unsafe,” Stevens said. According to a 1976 study from the Association on American Indian Affairs, 90% of the approximately 25% to 35% of all Indigenous children placed in out-of-home care were moved to non-Indigenous homes and institutions.

Stevens previously told the D.O. that the Supreme Court could potentially overturn more protections for Indigenous communities if ICWA is found to be unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court is expected to release decisions for all four cases before the end of June, when the court enters recess for the remainder of the summer.

Published on May 11, 2023 at 12:27 am

Contact Dominic: dcchiapp@syr.edu | @DominicChiappo2