The Eviction and Homelessness Crisis: Has the Supreme Court Bitten Off More than it Can Chew?

By: Ana Cucalon

Edited by: Alexandria Ragy and Valerie Chu

The impending Supreme Court case regarding homelessness rules in Oregon serves as a poignant reminder of the interconnectedness between homelessness, evictions, and the broader issue of inequality within the American justice system. As the nation grapples with a growing homelessness epidemic and an escalating eviction crisis, it becomes imperative to understand the underlying causes and their legal ramifications. This article seeks to delve into the complex dynamics at play, drawing upon recent scholarship to explore how rising levels of inequality perpetuate the cycle of evictions and homelessness, consequently exacerbating the justice system crisis.

The case before the Supreme Court revolves around the legality of homelessness in American cities, specifically in Oregon where the case is centered. At its core lies the tension between municipal ordinances wishing to regulate the use of public spaces and the constitutional rights of homeless individuals, namely their right to sleep. The case is set to address an issue so contested that it has united Democrat and Republican politicians as they plead to the Supreme Court for clarification as to how the homelessness crisis should be addressed. Specifically, they want two things to be made clear: what constitutes an adequate shelter, and what constitutes involuntary homelessness. [1]

The Oregon case began in Boise, Idaho, where a homeless group sued the city for violating the Eighth Amendment. After being fined for sleeping in a public space, the group argued that because the city did not have adequate shelter beds, they were involuntarily homeless. Therefore, they argued they should not be punished for sleeping in public spaces as it is an “unusual and cruel punishment” to criminalize the need to sleep. [2] They won their case, and when the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court they were denied. The case, titled Martin v. Boise, is the basis for the case in Grants Pass. There, homeless people were increasingly fined for sleeping on sidewalks and in parks, facing incarceration were they to repeat the offense. Many of them were incapable of paying the fines so stayed in the parks. They proceeded to sue the city, stating that they were violating the Constitution based on the legal precedent set in Martin v. Boise. They argued that they were subject to the same involuntary homelessness described in the case, as Grant Pass did not provide adequate shelter for them to reside. [3] The Oregon case raises three important questions plaguing the American justice system: can cities make it illegal to be homeless? Why is there an increase in homelessness? Is there a deeper issue propelling the crisis at hand?

Legal scholars Colleen Shanahan and Anna Carpenter would argue that there is, and the issue is inequality. Their research underscores how structural disparities within the legal system disproportionately disadvantage marginalized groups, leading to a proliferation of evictions. They discuss how due to rising levels of poverty, increases in rent, and disproportionately poor conditions in underprivileged neighborhoods, people are continuously forced out of their homes. [4] Sociologist Matthew Desmond said this downward residential mobility also propels negative effects such as “adolescent violence, poor school performances, and health risks” (Desmond 89). [5] This reveals a systematic cycle of poverty and inequality, which no matter the attempts to address homelessness and the eviction crisis, continue to exacerbate the burdens on the justice system. In their article "Simplified Courts Can’t Solve Inequality," Shanahan and Carpenter argue that these problems of inequality can’t be solved through legislation. Instead, they believe social safety nets are better equipped to address the issues of systemic poverty that propel homelessness and eviction. [6]

Therefore, it is important to question whether or not the Supreme Court can tackle the issue of homelessness. The strain on the justice system caused by eviction demonstrates that the Court may need to be more capable of addressing the issue it is presented with. Overburdened courts and inadequate legal representation for vulnerable populations perpetuate systemic injustices. Recent research underscores the urgent need for systemic reforms to mitigate the adverse effects of inequality within the justice system.

In conclusion, the eviction and homelessness crises plaguing America's justice system are symptomatic of deeper societal inequities. By examining the interplay between rising inequality, evictions, and homelessness, scholars have uncovered systemic flaws that perpetuate cycles of poverty and marginalization. As the Supreme Court prepares to navigate the legal complexities surrounding homelessness regulations, it may be necessary for policymakers, advocates, and communities to prioritize solutions that address the root causes of inequality.

Notes:

1. Abbie VanSickle, "Supreme Court to Hear Case Over Homelessness Rules in Oregon," New York Times, September 27, 2023.

2. "The Supreme Court Takes Up Homelessness," The Daily, podcast audio, New York Times, November 3, 2023.

3. VanSickle, "Supreme Court to Hear Case Over Homelessness Rules in Oregon,"

4. Shanahan and Carpenter, "Lawyerless Law Development," Journal of Law and Social Inquiry 42, no. 3 (Summer 2017): 567-589.

5. Matthew Desmond, "Eviction and the Reproduction of Urban Poverty" (Ph.D. diss., University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2010).

6. Shanahan and Carpenter, "Simplified Courts Can't Solve Inequality," Stanford Law Review 69, no. 2 (February 2017): 423-445.

Bibliography:

Desmond, Matthew. 2012."Eviction and the Reproduction of Urban Poverty." American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 118, No. 1.

Shanahan, and Carpenter. 2023. "Lawyerless Law Development." Stanford Law Review, no. 3: 567-589.

Shanahan, and Carpenter. 2019. "Simplified Courts Can't Solve Inequality." Journal of Law and Social Inquiry, no. 2: 423-445.

The Daily, New York Times. 2024. "The Supreme Court Takes Up Homelessness." https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/19/podcasts/the-daily/supreme-court-homelessness.html

VanSickle, Abbie. 2024. "Supreme Court to Hear Case Over Homelessness Rules in Oregon." New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/12/us/politics/supreme-court-homeless-camps-oregon.html

Caitlin Clark and the Future of Wage Disparities in Women’s Sports

By: Eliana Aero Selassie

Edited by: regan Cornelius and Isabella canales

Caitlin Clark, point guard for the University of Iowa’s women’s basketball team, has revolutionized college sports in the last year. With 3,951 career points, Clark is the leading scorer in the history of college basketball. [1] The NCAA women’s basketball championship game between the Iowa Hawkeyes and the University of South Carolina Gamecocks broke records by being the most-watched basketball game in the last 5 years, which averaged 18.7 million viewers and 24 million at its peak. The Iowa game pulled 4 million more viewers than the men’s NCAA final for the first time as a result of Clark’s incredible performance in the last year. [2] The Iowa game was the most-watched basketball game in the history of ESPN and this dramatic increase in viewership has brought women’s basketball to new levels of praise and viewership. [3]

Clark was selected as the WNBA's Number 1 draft pick and is now set to play for the Indiana Fever. Despite her record achievements and strong career ahead of her, many were shocked to discover her remarkably low salary for a record-breaking athlete of her stature. Clark’s rookie contract is $338,056 over 4 years, totaling $84,500 annually. Her salary is starkly lower than NBA No. 1 draft pick Victor Wembanyama, whose salary is $55.2 million over the next 4 years. This is largely a result of structural issues between the WNBA and the NBA that contribute to severe pay inequality. Players’ salaries are usually a product of annual revenue from each league, consisting of television and broadcasting rights, sponsorships, and ticket and merchandise purchases. [4] The NBA annually earns roughly $10 billion in revenue, which is fifty times greater than the WNBA's revenue of $200M. Additionally, the NBA also plays for a considerably longer season, with 82 games compared to 40 for the WNBA. Because the NBA plays significantly more games, it is able to generate more annual revenue and play its players more. However, given that the WNBA plays fewer games, it makes significantly less in annual revenue, thereby restricting the amount of money available for player’s salaries. [5]

Another important factor is collective bargaining agreements (CBA). The NBA’s CBA allows players to receive 50 percent of all the revenue the league generates, creating a substantial pool for their salaries. In contrast, WNBA players receive 50 percent of “incremental revenue” which is known as “revenue that exceeds the targets the league has set for itself”. [5] This provides a much smaller pool for their salaries to be drawn from, in addition to the significantly lower amount of annual revenue that the WNBA makes compared to the NBA. In total, this also means that only 20 percent of the revenue the WNBA generates goes toward players' salaries. [5]

President Biden was among the fans disheartened by Clark’s low salary, sharing on the social media platform X that “Right now we’re seeing that even if you’re the best, women are not paid their fair share. It’s time that we give our daughters the same opportunities as our sons and ensure women are paid what they deserve”. [6] Women earn around 15 to 100% less than their male counterparts in sports like basketball, soccer, tennis, and golf. Conversations over this disparity in sports were catapulted by the significant inequalities between the payment and treatment of male and female soccer teams. During the 2022 Men’s World Cup, the winner’s prize pool was $440 million, while in the 2023 Women’s World Cup, the pool was $110 million, a quarter less. However, despite these stark differences, the gap between male and female athletes is the most blatant between the WNBA and the NBA. In the 2022-2023 season, NBA players had a minimum salary of $953,000 and a maximum salary of $45,780,966, while the WNBA had a minimum salary of $60,000 and a maximum salary of $234,936. [7]

Caitlin Clark and wage discrepancies in the WNBA compared to their male counterparts in the NBA are indicative of a larger issue of wage inequality in the workplace. In the United States, for every dollar a man makes, a woman earns 84 cents. [8] The wage gap is even more stark for women of color, where black and Latina women who work full time are paid, respectively, 69 cents and 57 cents for every dollar a white man makes. These discrepancies have persisted despite legislation and legal efforts enacted to address the wage gap. [9]

The Equal Pay Act (EPA), passed in 1963, bars discrimination between men and women who work the same jobs with the same skills, effort, responsibility, and working conditions. The act “prohibits discrimination on account of sex in the payment of wages by employers.” Nonetheless, the act’s enforcement and application have been significantly ineffective because many of its features lack enforcement mechanisms to hold corporations responsible for the wage gap. The EPA fails to outline provisions for fair compensation of victims of wage discrepancies and interpretations of the EPA have been very inconsistent in defining “a work establishment,” which has allowed employers to pay unequal wages to men and women because they can take advantage of these inconsistent interpretations and pay their workers in a manner of their choosing. The act also provides weak class action provisions, making it hard for victims of discrimination to carry out lawsuits. 

More recent political and legal efforts to amend the wage gap have also been unsuccessful at tackling the issue. In the 2007 Supreme Court case Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., it was stated that employees could not sue their employers for pay discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if they had not filed the suit “within 180 days of a discriminatory salary decision”. [11] The Ledbetter case marked a substantial judicial setback in achieving equal pay since the capacity and agency of women to receive compensation for wage discrimination was significantly reduced, illustrating a lack of success in recent attempts to resolve these inequalities.  Most recently, the Paycheck Fairness Act (PFA) was reintroduced into the House and the Senate in March 2023 after failing to pass through the Senate in 2021. The PFA helps address many of the EPA’s weaknesses, providing a clear definition of a work “establishment”, improving class action provisions, and providing stronger enforcement mechanisms. [10]      

Despite significant setbacks, Clark’s rapid impact on women’s basketball could alter the future of WNBA wages and the league’s reputation. Teams set to play the Fever have begun to see an increase in ticket sales, and her Indiana Fever jersey is fully sold out. Furthermore, teams playing Clark and the Fever are already expanding to larger stadiums to accommodate increased viewer turnout. Clark’s presence in the WNBA has rapidly grown its fanbase and increased awareness of the wage and resource inequality that female basketball players face. [12] Many players are hopeful that this is the start of much-needed change in the WNBA and the treatment of female athletes everywhere. The debate over Clark’s salary could also be an important step toward introducing and enforcing legislation that amends the wage gap across workplaces. 

Notes:

1. Reynolds, Tim. “Caitlin Clark's college career, by the numbers.” AP News, 8 April 2024, https://apnews.com/article/caitlin-clark-iowa-ncaa-1d88d50c2db783b6e5b075e7243dcc85. Accessed 8 May 2024.

2. “Caitlin Clark – University of Iowa Athletics.” n.d. Iowa Athletics. Accessed April 23, 2024. https://hawkeyesports.com/roster/caitlin-clark/.

3. Matthews, Alex L. 2024. “How women’s NCAA basketball and Caitlin Clark broke viewership records, in three charts.” CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/10/us/ncaa-womens-basketball-ratings-dg/index.html.

4. Gregory, Sean. 2024. “Caitlin Clark's Legacy Is Untarnished After Final NCAA Game.” Time. https://time.com/6964487/caitlin-clark-ncaa-championship-legacy/.

5. Johnson, Roy. 2024. “Misplaced outrage over WNBA contract should spark change.” Las Vegas Sun. https://lasvegassun.com/news/2024/apr/20/misplaced-outrage-over-wnba-contract-should-spark/. 

6. Zhou, Li. 2024. “Caitlin Clark's staggeringly low starting salary, briefly explained.” Vox. https://www.vox.com/24132057/caitlin-clark-wnba-draft-2024. 

7. Vigdor, Neil. 2024. “Biden Weighs in on Caitlin Clark Salary Debate After W.N.B.A. Draft.” The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/17/us/politics/caitlin-clark-salary-biden.html. 

8. Adelphi University. 2023. “Male vs. Female Professional Sports Salary Comparison.” Online Programs. https://online.adelphi.edu/articles/male-female-sports-salary/. 

9. Sahadi, Jeanne. 2024. “March 12 marks Equal Pay Day this year.” CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/12/success/equal-pay-day-2024/index.html. 

10. “The Simple Truth about the Pay Gap.” n.d. AAUW. Accessed April 23, 2024. https://www.aauw.org/resources/research/simple-truth/. 

11. American Bar Association. n.d. “The Paycheck Fairness Act.” American Bar Association. Accessed April 23, 2024. https://www.americanbar.org/advocacy/governmental_legislative_work/priorities_policy/discrimination/the-paycheck-fairness-act/. 

12. Oyez, 2024. “Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company.” https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/05-1074. 

13. Treisman, Rachel. 2024. “Caitlin Clark and Fever frenzy hit the WNBA, boosting ticket prices and jersey sales.” NPR. https://www.npr.org/2024/04/22/1246308836/caitlin-clark-indiana-fever-wnba-tickets-venues. 

Bibliography:

Adelphi University. 2023. “Male vs. Female Professional Sports Salary Comparison.” Online Programs. https://online.adelphi.edu/articles/male-female-sports-salary/.

American Bar Association. n.d. “The Paycheck Fairness Act.” American Bar Association. Accessed April 23, 2024. https://www.americanbar.org/advocacy/governmental_legislative_work/priorities_policy/discrimination/the-paycheck-fairness-act/.

Gregory, Sean. 2024. “Caitlin Clark's Legacy Is Untarnished After Final NCAA Game.” Time. https://time.com/6964487/caitlin-clark-ncaa-championship-legacy/.

Johnson, Roy. 2024. “Misplaced outrage over WNBA contract should spark change.” Las Vegas Sun. https://lasvegassun.com/news/2024/apr/20/misplaced-outrage-over-wnba-contract-should-spark/.

Matthews, Alex L. 2024. “How women’s NCAA basketball and Caitlin Clark broke viewership records, in three charts.” CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/10/us/ncaa-womens-basketball-ratings-dg/index.html.

Oyez, 2024. “Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company.” https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/05-1074.

Reynolds, Tim. “Caitlin Clark's college career, by the numbers.” AP News, 8 April 2024, https://apnews.com/article/caitlin-clark-iowa-ncaa-1d88d50c2db783b6e5b075e7243dcc85. Accessed 8 May 2024.

Sahadi, Jeanne. 2024. “March 12 marks Equal Pay Day this year.” CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/12/success/equal-pay-day-2024/index.html.

“The Simple Truth about the Pay Gap.” n.d. AAUW. Accessed April 23, 2024. https://www.aauw.org/resources/research/simple-truth/.

Treisman, Rachel. 2024. “Caitlin Clark and Fever frenzy hit the WNBA, boosting ticket prices and jersey sales.” NPR. https://www.npr.org/2024/04/22/1246308836/caitlin-clark-indiana-fever-wnba-tickets-venues.

Vigdor, Neil. 2024. “Biden Weighs in on Caitlin Clark Salary Debate After W.N.B.A. Draft.” The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/17/us/politics/caitlin-clark-salary-biden.html.

Zhou, Li. 2024. “Caitlin Clark's staggeringly low starting salary, briefly explained.” Vox. https://www.vox.com/24132057/caitlin-clark-wnba-draft-2024.

Pharmaceutical Companies Are Paying for the Effects of the Opioid Crisis

By: Sari Richmond

edited by: Jack Pacconi and Clark Mahoney

From 1991-2021, the opioid crisis killed almost 645,000 people through both illicit means and through prescriptions.[1] Earlier in the epidemic from 2007-2017, suits were geared against opioid manufacturers like Purdue Pharma, responsible for the creation of OxyContin. These cases were mainly personal injury suits created by addicted users who overdosed; legal representation would often argue that packaging and advertising were misleading, there were no tamper-resistant mechanisms, and companies were purposefully withholding information about how the drugs were designed to be used.[2] However, these personal injury suits were often difficult to win, especially when juries were used to assess whether the drug and drug company itself was at fault versus the user. Many jurors found it difficult to convict a drug company or distribution company if the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had approved the drug, and often the consensus was that doctors and prescribers were responsible for arming patients with information about the prescription opioid drugs to prevent addiction. Moreover, jurors found it difficult to convict a company over singular addicts whose lifestyles were unsympathetic or who had risky behaviors in the past.[2] Over time, as the population impacted by the crisis grew and more cases were documented across a more diverse range of people, jurors found more plaintiffs to sympathize with—coupled with the emergence of babies being born with health issues by parents addicted to opioids. Following this upturn was a myriad of suits filed by the federal government, cities, states, and districts across the country.[2]

An example of larger government suits aimed at holding opioid manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacy dispensing companies accountable for their role in the epidemic is the recent settlement agreement between The City of Philadelphia and Walgreens. In April 2024, the city announced that a $110 million settlement would be paid by Walgreens in response to the 2021 suit filed. The original suit claimed that Walgreens had not adequately monitored suspicious orders for prescribed pain medication and had freely dispensed highly addictive substances without ensuring that the prescriptions were valid.[3] The official settlement agreement claims that Walgreens broke the law for “failing to monitor, report, and abstain from shipping allegedly suspicious orders of opioid pain medications, and dispensing opioid pain medications without confirming those prescriptions were issued for a legitimate medical purpose.”[4] Walgreens denied any wrongdoing, and both parties agreed to settle in order to avoid the expense and confusion of litigation.[4] Philadelphia plans to use the $110 million in a variety of ways to help the city heal from the impact of the crisis. At least $88.3 million will be "compensatory remediation" to directly address the damage allegedly caused by Walgreens’ mishandling of drugs in the case. The remaining $21.7 million will reimburse the city for its costs in pursuing the case.[5] 

Prior to this settlement, many other states and cities have settled with companies including CVS and drug makers Teva and Allergan.[3] San Francisco, Illinois, Texas, Florida, and Nevada have received the most substantial payouts from assortments of drug companies and distribution chains. Similar to the plans announced by Philadelphia, each state and city has its own ideas of how to best use the settlement funds to benefit members of the community and restore funds to the government. In Nevada, about $98.1 million will be used to help finance opioid recovery programs through the state Department of Health and Human Services.[6]  

Throughout these cases, similar approaches were used when governments filed cases against firearm and tobacco companies.[2] The first strategy was often used in firearm cases when it was alleged that oversaturation of the market by a product without implementing proper control over distribution would lead to black market sales being made. This was argued in tandem with the idea that drug companies must have known that the volume of drugs being produced could not only be satiating rightfully prescribed patients.[2] The second approach used was a frequent fraud claim that deemed drug companies’ business practices deceptive, a proven effective strategy when battling tobacco companies. Under consumer protection laws, governments alleged that these companies made misleading comments about how addictive these drugs truly were, and that this was done purposefully to mislead prescribers and consumers alike. Alongside this idea of poor business practices, governments argued that these drug companies failed to adhere to the federal Controlled Substances Act, which requires tracking and appropriate reporting for suspicious orders. Though this strategy was eventually successful, it was considerably more difficult to prove than in previous tobacco suits where leaked evidence showed high-level employees explicitly seeking to understate its addictiveness and manipulate nicotine levels in the product. In the opioid cases, lawyers were mainly working with evidence obtained through investigative reporting, some statements from previous smaller settlements, and the idea that marketing strategies remained consistent despite increasing evidence of opioids’ addictive and harmful properties.[2] Finally, it was argued that the practices of these companies actively cost city, county, and state governments excessive amounts of money. This strategy was wildly more successful in this instance than in cases concerning tobacco or firearm companies because it was easier to show the government was burdened with medical and law-enforcement costs. Moreover, government funding for unnecessary prescriptions under public insurance programs directly fed into drug companies’ profits.[2] 

Overall, the evolution of suits against drug production and distribution companies as well as distribution facilities like pharmaceutical chains has morphed as the impact of the opioid epidemic has morphed. Starting from personal injury cases that struggled to gain traction against juries who oftentimes had issues discerning fault between consumers, prescribers, producers, and distributors, legal success against drug companies has come a long way. Employing strategies used in cases against tobacco and firearm companies to prove the drug companies’ purposeful misleading of the public throughout the crisis, failure to monitor oversaturation and unnecessary prescription of the products, and impact on government funds, payouts have begun to settle across many cities, counties, and states. These settlements have begun funding programs to repair communities on multiple levels and repay governments for losses accrued throughout the past few decades.    

Notes:

1. “Understanding the Opioid Overdose Epidemic | Opioids | CDC.” n.d. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed April 21, 2024.

2. “Drug Companies' Liability for the Opioid Epidemic.” 2020. NCBI.

3. “Philadelphia to Receive 110 Million Settlement from Walgreens in Lawsuit Over Opioid Crisis.” Accessed April 21, 2024. Gazett Extra. 

4. n.d. Wikipedia. Accessed April 21, 2024.

5. “Walgreens Inks 110M Deal to End Philly Opioid Crisis Suit.” 2024. Law360.

6. “Nevada secures $285 million opioid settlement with Walgreens, bringing total settlements to $1 billion.” 2023. PBS. 

Bibliography:

n.d. Wikipedia. Accessed April 21, 2024. https://www.phila.gov/media/20240419103742/Complete_with_DocuSign_Execution_Copy_Philad.pdf.

“Drug Companies' Liability for the Opioid Epidemic.” 2020. NCBI. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7479783/.

“Nevada secures $285 million opioid settlement with Walgreens, bringing total settlements to $1 billion.” 2023. PBS. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/nevada-secures-285-million-opioid-settlement-with-walgreens-bringing-total-settlements-to-1-billion.

“Philadelphia to Receive 110 Million Settlement from Walgreens in Lawsuit Over Opioid Crisis.” Accessed April 21, 2024. Gazett Extra. https://www.gazettextra.com/news/nation_world/philadelphia-to-receive-110-million-settlement-from-walgreens-in-lawsuit-over-opioid-crisis/article_99146e33-7847-5ac3-9277-25854299eb41.html.

“Understanding the Opioid Overdose Epidemic | Opioids | CDC.” n.d. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed April 21, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/opioids/basics/epidemic.html.

“Walgreens Inks 110M Deal to End Philly Opioid Crisis Suit.” 2024. Law360. https://www.law360.com/articles/1827618/walgreens-inks-110m-deal-to-end-philly-opioid-crisis-suit.

Legacy Admissions: How Affirmative Action Lives on for the Privileged

By: Morgan Dreher

Edited by: Colin Crawford and Isabel Niemer

In a landmark decision during the summer of 2023, the Supreme Court banned Affirmative Action in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. According to the decision, race-conscious admissions are unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. [1] It seems that the conservative court has set aside equity concerns and is choosing to embrace the United States tradition of meritocracy, right? Yet, it appears that not all forms of Affirmative Action are gone. Famously referred to by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as “affirmative action for the privileged,” legacy admissions were excluded from the SFFA v. Harvard decision and remain a prominent practice in the United States, despite their mention in the case. [2] With Affirmative Action banned due to the unlawful favoring of certain groups, why are we continuing to give preference to the children of alumni and donors? Now that the equalizing force of Affirmative Action is gone, a widespread uproar against the hypocrisy of continuing legacy admissions has surfaced to challenge the century-old practice.

Legacy admissions originated in the 1920’s, and the intention was unethical from the start. As the presence of Catholic and Jewish immigrants was growing in the United States, elite institutions, which were mainly Protestant, sought to protect their religious exclusivity. [3] Since Catholic people were quick to form their own colleges, legacy policies were largely targeted at keeping Jewish students out of American universities. The Ivy League started as exclusively wealthy, white, and Protestant, and legacy policies were intended to ensure that these identities continued to dominate top universities. [4] As a result, legacy admissions also effectively slowed the representation of other races and religions in Ivy League schools. [5] Today, universities claim different goals, citing that legacies help them build a sense of family loyalty, gauge interest levels of students to lower their acceptance rates, and acquire university donations. [6][7]

While these may be the current publicized reasons universities support legacy admissions, the other effects are quite problematic. For example, legacy admissions perpetuate social stratification, as legacy admits are typically wealthy and white. [8] According to a study from a Harvard research group, legacy students are almost four times more likely to be accepted than students with comparable test scores, meaning the advantage is extreme. [9] This is impacting a drastic portion of the student bodies at competitive schools, as PBS reports that 43% of Harvard students had some sort of legacy status. [10] Some colleges will even offer scholarships to legacies, [11] even though legacy students do not have higher qualifications or demonstrate better performance once arriving at the university. [12] Furthermore, America’s top institutions are the most likely to consider legacy status in admissions. [13] Degrees from these universities are often linked to higher income and a greater likelihood of achieving a leadership position, meaning the integrity of the admissions practices at these institutions holds a significant societal impact. [14] The number of colleges partaking further exacerbates the issue. In 2010, most liberal arts colleges and research institutions showed a preference for legacy students. [15] 

The combination of these disturbing statistics and the erasure of Affirmative Action has prompted states and universities to reconsider whether they should incorporate legacy status into their admissions practices. As of now, the only two states to bar legacy admissions are Colorado and Virginia. Colorado took this step in 2021, while Virginia’s proposal recently passed unanimously through both chambers of their legislature, and will take effect in July of 2024. [16] Both states only banned the practice in their public universities, but a few private institutions have enacted similar bans, such as MIT and Johns Hopkins University. [17][18] More change is on the horizon, with states such as Connecticut, California, Massachusetts, Maryland, and New York currently debating legislation for bans in both public and private schools. [19] Some of these states must battle strong opposition from the country’s top universities, including Harvard and Yale. The fate of many of these universities likely rests on the Department of Education’s current investigation of Harvard, which is looking to determine whether legacy admissions promote racial discrimination. [20] If Harvard’s practices are found to perpetuate discrimination, other schools will likely expunge legacy admissions before facing similar scrutiny. 

What about a federal ban? Although this usually seems far-fetched because of Congress’ typical sluggish pace, the bipartisan federal bill introduced to Congress in November 2023 may stand a chance. [21] Support for the issue is widespread, as a Pew Research Center Study reported that 75% of Americans disagree with legacy admissions. [22] Additionally, the issue receives support from both sides of the political aisle, as Democrats zone in on equity concerns and Republicans focus on meritocracy. Either way, the blatant hypocrisy of legacy admissions despite the SFFA v. Harvard decision is glaring, and people from all parties are provoked. If the Supreme Court claims preferential treatment should not be given based on membership to underprivileged communities, then the most privileged members of society certainly should not be given an extra advantage. 

Notes:

1. Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023).

2. Michael D. Shear and Anemona Hartocollis, "Education Dept. Opens Civil Rights Inquiry into Harvard’s Legacy Admissions," New York Times, Late Edition (East Coast), 2023.  http://turing.library.northwestern.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/education-dept-opens-civil-rights-inquiry-into/docview/2841610164/se-2. 

3. Erin Blakemore, “Why do colleges have legacy admissions? It started as a way to keep out Jews,” National Geographic, 2023. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/legacy-admissions-college-anti-semitism-united-states. 

4. Allan Ornstein, “Wealth, Legacy and College Admission,” Soc 56, 335–339, (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-019-00377-2. 

5. Ornstein, “Wealth, Legacy and College Admission,” 2019.

6. Shear and Hartocollis, "Education Dept. Opens Civil Rights Inquiry into Harvard’s Legacy Admissions," 2023.

7. Gabriela Goodman and Sarah Reber, “Who uses legacy admissions? | Brookings.” Brookings Institution, 2024. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-widespread-is-the-practice-of-giving-special-consideration-to-relatives-of-alumni-in-admissions/. 

8. Deborah L. Coe and James D. Davidson, “The Origins of Legacy Admissions: A Sociological Explanation,” Review of Religious Research 52, no. 3 : 233–47, 2011. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23055549.

9. Joan E. Greve, “'Affirmative action for the privileged': why Democrats are fighting legacy admissions,” The Guardian, 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/aug/11/college-legacy-admissions-affirmative-action-democrats. 

10. Geoff Bennett and Courtney Norris, “Affirmative action ruling prompts new push to end legacy admissions,” PBS, 2023. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/affirmative-action-ruling-prompts-new-push-to-end-legacy-admissions.

11. Goodman and Reber, “Who uses legacy admissions?” 2024. 

12. E. J. Castilla and E. J. Poskanzer, “Through the Front Door: Why Do Organizations (Still) Prefer Legacy Applicants?” American Sociological Review, 87(5), 782-826, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1177/00031224221122889. 

13. Goodman and Reber, “Who uses legacy admissions?” 2024.

14. Natasha Warikoo, "What Meritocracy Means to its Winners: Admissions, Race, and Inequality at Elite Universities in The United States and Britain" Social Sciences 7, no. 8: 131, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7080131. 

15. Castilla and Poskanzer, “Why Do Organizations (Still) Prefer Legacy Applicants?” 2022.

16. Laura Spitalniak, “A look at 5 states weighing legacy admissions bans,” Higher Ed Dive, 2024. https://www.highereddive.com/news/5-states-weigh-legacy-admissions-bans/711428/. 

17. Spitalniak, “5 states weighing legacy admissions bans,” 2024. 

18. Blakemore, “Why do colleges have legacy admissions? It started as a way to keep out Jews,” 2023. 

19. Spitalniak, “5 states weighing legacy admissions bans,” 2024. 

20. Marissa Zupancic, “US Education Department investigating Harvard legacy admissions policy for racial discrimination,” Jurist, 2023. https://www.jurist.org/news/2023/07/us-education-department-investigating-harvard-legacy-admissions-policy-for-racial-discrimination/. 

21. Liam Knox, “State bans on legacy preferences gain bipartisan steam,” Inside Higher Ed, 2024. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/admissions/traditional-age/2024/01/29/state-bans-legacy-preferences-gain-bipartisan-steam. 

22. Goodman and Reber, “Who uses legacy admissions?” 2024.

Bibliography:

Bennett, Geoff, and Courtney Norris. “Affirmative action ruling prompts new push to end legacy admissions.” PBS, PBS, July 13, 2023. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/affirmative-action-ruling-prompts-new-push-to-end-legacy-admissions.  

Blakemore, Erin. “Why do colleges have legacy admissions? It started as a way to keep out Jews.” National Geographic, 2023. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/legacy-admissions-college-anti-semitism-united-states. 

Castilla, E. J., & Poskanzer, E. J.. Through the Front Door: Why Do Organizations (Still) Prefer Legacy Applicants? American Sociological Review, 87(5), (2022): 782-826. https://doi.org/10.1177/00031224221122889. 

Coe, Deborah L., and James D. Davidson. “The Origins of Legacy Admissions: A Sociological Explanation.” Review of Religious Research 52, no. 3 (2011): 233–47. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23055549. 

Greve, Joan E.. “'Affirmative action for the privileged': why Democrats are fighting legacy admissions.” The Guardian, 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/aug/11/college-legacy-admissions-affirmative-action-democrats. 

Goodman, Gabriela, and Sarah Reber.“Who uses legacy admissions? | Brookings.” Brookings Institution, 2024. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-widespread-is-the-practice-of-giving-special-consideration-to-relatives-of-alumni-in-admissions/. 

Knox, Liam. “State bans on legacy preferences gain bipartisan steam.” Inside Higher Ed, 2024. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/admissions/traditional-age/2024/01/29/state-bans-legacy-preferences-gain-bipartisan-steam. 

Ornstein, A. “Wealth, Legacy and College Admission.” Soc 56, 3 (2019): 35–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-019-00377-2. 

Shear, Michael D. and Anemona Hartocollis. "Education Dept. Opens Civil Rights Inquiry into Harvard’s Legacy Admissions." New York Times, Jul 26, 2023, Late Edition (East Coast). https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/25/us/politics/harvard-admissions-civil-rights-inquiry.html. 

Spitalniak, Laura. “A look at 5 states weighing legacy admissions bans.” Higher Ed Dive, 2024. https://www.highereddive.com/news/5-states-weigh-legacy-admissions-bans/711428/. 

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023).

Warikoo, Natasha. "What Meritocracy Means to its Winners: Admissions, Race, and Inequality at Elite Universities in The United States and Britain" Social Sciences 7, no. 8: 131, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7080131. 

Zupancic, Marissa. “US Education Department investigating Harvard legacy admissions policy for racial discrimination.” Jurist, 2023. https://www.jurist.org/news/2023/07/us-education-department-investigating-harvard-legacy-admissions-policy-for-racial-discrimination/.