Fact Check: Supreme Court's Logic Undermines the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause
What We Know
The claim that the Supreme Court's recent rulings undermine the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause is rooted in two significant cases: the decision on affirmative action in college admissions and a ruling regarding transgender rights.
-
In June 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the admissions programs used by Harvard College and the University of North Carolina violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. This ruling effectively ended the use of affirmative action in college admissions, stating that such programs discriminate based on race, which is prohibited by the Constitution (LibGuides: Affirmative Action).
-
More recently, in June 2025, the Court upheld a Tennessee law banning certain medical treatments for transgender minors, ruling that this law did not violate the equal protection clause. This decision was also reached with a 6-3 vote, where the conservative majority argued that the law was within the state's rights and did not constitute discrimination under the 14th Amendment (US Supreme Court upholds Tennessee law).
These rulings suggest a trend where the Court interprets the equal protection clause in a manner that limits protections for certain groups, particularly in the context of affirmative action and transgender rights.
Analysis
The assertion that the Supreme Court's logic undermines the equal protection clause can be evaluated through the lens of these two cases.
-
Affirmative Action Ruling: The decision to strike down affirmative action programs was based on the premise that any consideration of race in admissions processes constitutes discrimination. Critics argue that this interpretation neglects the historical context of the 14th Amendment, which was designed to rectify systemic inequalities. Some legal scholars have described the Court's reasoning as "narrow and misguided," suggesting that it overlooks the substantial history of racial discrimination in the United States (LibGuides: Affirmative Action, SUMMARY OF THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISIONS).
-
Transgender Rights Ruling: The ruling on the Tennessee law reflects a similar conservative interpretation of the equal protection clause. By siding with the state, the Court's majority implied that the rights of transgender minors do not warrant the same level of protection as other groups. This has raised concerns among advocates for LGBTQ+ rights, who argue that such decisions further marginalize already vulnerable populations (US Supreme Court upholds Tennessee law).
The reliability of these sources is generally high, as they include official court opinions and reputable news reporting. However, the interpretation of these rulings can vary significantly depending on the ideological perspective of the commentators. Thus, while the rulings themselves are factual, the implications drawn from them can be subjective.
Conclusion
The claim that the Supreme Court's logic undermines the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause is Partially True. The Court's recent decisions indeed reflect a shift in how the equal protection clause is applied, particularly regarding affirmative action and transgender rights. While the rulings are grounded in legal reasoning, they have sparked significant debate about their implications for equality and protection under the law, suggesting that the Court's interpretation may limit protections for certain groups rather than expand them.
