Question

Terms under which courts have upheld preferences (3)

Answer 1

Courts have upheld preferences under affirmative action practices, stare decisis through evolving legal precedents, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. These have supported giving preferential treatment to correct historical injustices and promote diversity.

Step-by-step explanation:

The question asks about the terms under which courts have upheld preferences, which refers to the circumstances and legal principles that justify giving certain groups preferential treatment to address past discrimination or to promote diversity. There are three terms under which the U.S. courts have historically done this:

1. Courts have upheld affirmative action practices under the idea that compensating for historical injustices can justify preferences. This principle is backed by philosophical arguments, as noted by James Rachels, Judith Jarvis Thomson, and Mary Anne Warren, and by legal standards, such as in the Supreme Court case Grutter v. Bollinger, which acknowledged the use of race as a "plus factor" in admissions to promote diversity and redress historical inequalities.
2. Legal precedents and the doctrine of stare decisis, where previous court rulings set standards for future decisions, have supported preferences. For example, changing attitudes towards racial segregation shifted from the Plessy v. Ferguson decision to the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case, exemplifying how judicial interpretations evolve over time.
3. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment mandates that no state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. This constitutional provision has been used to justify actions that aim to eliminate discrimination and level the playing field for historically marginalized groups.

Moreover, decisions regarding civil unions and same-sex marriages, the invalidation of antisodomy laws, and the balancing of individual rights with the government's need to govern also reflect the courts' approach to upholding preferences in certain contexts.