EDITORIAL: The Supreme Court wraps a lively term

The Supreme Court ended its term with a flourish last week, saving two of the most high-profile decisions for last. In both cases the majority justices struck a blow for the spirit of the Constitution.

The rulings will no doubt anger leftists, who see the nation’s founding document as an impediment to their efforts to remake modern society rather than as a guardrail against government overreach. But neither decision should be a surprise and both are rooted in important constitutional principles.

In cases involving college admissions standards at the University of North Carolina and Harvard, a 6-3 majority in the former and 6-2 in the latter held that preferences based on race don’t comport with the 14th Amendment.

“The Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the equal protection clause,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote. “Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping and lack meaningful end points.”

The decision highlights the inherent tension between the competing concepts of equality and equity. The court, like most Americans, embraces the former, the concept that all citizens should be treated equally. Progressives now flock around the latter, the idea that equal outcomes is the only just result. To achieve equity requires a more aggressive government program of racial spoils and discrimination.

In a 2007 case, Justice Roberts wrote that, “The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

Indeed. Thursday’s decision doesn’t completely outlaw the use of race in admissions, but it makes it much more difficult to justify. “In other words,” Justice Roberts wrote, “the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual — not on the basis of race.”

There was a day when such an evenhanded pronouncement was hardly controversial.

A day after the ruling in the admissions cases, the justices followed up with a 6-3 decision invalidating President Joe Biden’s effort to unilaterally wipe out billions in student loan debt. The hand-wringing was predictable.

“This historic relief program would have made a significant impact on the lives of college graduates,” read a statement from the University of California, “particularly for those from low-income backgrounds who are more likely to take on debt to complete their education.”

But simply because a policy achieves a special interest group’s idea of a desired outcome does not make the policy constitutional. The justices ruled sensibly that the president, under the law, does not have the power to take such a step without congressional approval. Perhaps they should add a course or two in the California system on the importance of checks and balances.

Even Nancy Pelosi publicly stated that Mr. Biden did not have the authority to act as he did. If the president under the constitution is empowered to take such action, where is the limiting principle? Can he wipe out federally backed mortgage obligations? What can’t he do? While the law in question allows the Department of Education to make modifications to debt terms in certain circumstances, that doesn’t provide carte blanche for unlimited authority.

The student debt scheme was a bad idea from the start. The primary beneficiaries were higher-income households and graduate students, many entering well-paying professions. It was also a thumb in the eye to those who paid their way through college, sacrificed by attending a more affordable institution or entered the workforce after high school.

The Supreme Court got it right. If Mr. Biden believes that limited amnesty is the way to go on student loans, he should start working the halls of Congress.