[gnicholas]

Often this is true, but this case was decided based on constitutional interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Congress cannot override this with a law. It would require an amendment to the Constitution, which is more involved. Considering that not even CA could pass a law to allow affirmative action in higher education, it would be impossible for such an amendment to be passed and ratified by the states.

[dragonwriter]

> Often this is true, but this case was decided based on constitutional interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

The main opinion was actually following a line of cases using 14th Amendment jurisprudence to guide the interpetation of similar text in Title VI of the the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so, yes, Congress can override it by changing the text of the statute, which is in principal what is actually being applied.

The portion of the 14th Amendment whose interprtation was imported doesn’t bind either private actors or the federal government, so isn’t directly applicable on its own.

[gnicholas]

Hm, that's not my reading of the case, in particular this sentence from page 2 (the Syllabus):

> Held: Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The concurrence by Gorsuch also makes clear that the majority opinion was based on the Constitution, not Title VI.

> Today, the Court holds that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not tolerate this practice. I write to emphasize that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not either.

What are you seeing that indicates that the majority opinion was based on Title VI?

[eli]

Yeah but that’s nonsense. The Conservative majority wanted to get rid of affirmative action so they decided to interpret the 14th this way. That’s the point. This is judicial activism.