Constitutional colorblindness

Part of a series on
Discrimination
Forms Institutional Structural Statistical Taste-based
Attributes Age Caste Class Dialect Disability Genetic Hair texture Height Language Looks Mental disorder Race / Ethnicity Skin color Scientific racism Rank Sex Sexual orientation Species Size Viewpoint
Social Arophobia Acephobia Adultism Anti-albinism Anti-autism Anti-homelessness Anti-drug addicts Anti-intellectualism Anti-intersex Anti-left handedness Anti-Masonry Aporophobia Audism Biphobia Clannism Elitism Ephebiphobia Social determinants of health Social determinants of health in poverty Social determinants of mental health Fatphobia Gayphobia Gerontophobia Heterosexism HIV/AIDS stigma Homophobia Leprosy stigma Lesbophobia Discrimination against men Misandry Misogyny Nepotism Pedophobia Perpetual foreigner Pregnancy Sectarianism Supremacism Aryanism Autistic Black Chauvinism Female Illusory Jewish Male Nordicism Tigraynization Ultranationalism White Transphobia 21st-century anti-trans movement in the United Kingdom Non-binary Transmisogyny Trans men Vegaphobia Xenophobia
Religious Atheism Exclusivism Baháʼí Faith Buddhism Christianity Persecution Catholicism Eastern Orthodoxy Jehovah's Witnesses LDS or Mormon Protestantism Tewahedo Orthodoxy post–Cold War era Falun Gong Hinduism Persecution Untouchability Islam Persecution Ahmadiyya Shi'ism Sufism Sunnism minority Muslim Judaism Persecution Neopaganism Rastafari Sikhism Yazidism Zoroastrianism
Ethnic/national Afghan African Albanian Arab Armenian Asian France South Africa United States Assyrian Australian Austrian Azerbaijani Black people African Americans China South Africa Bengali Bulgarian Catalan Chechen Chinese Colombian Croat Dutch English Estonian Filipino French Fulani Finnish Georgian German Greek Haitian Hazara Hungarian Igbo Indian Indigenous people Australia Canada United States Iranian Irish Italian Japanese Jewish Antisemitism New Korean Kurdish Lithuanian Malay Māori Mexican Middle Eastern Mongolian Montenegrin Nigerian Pakistani Palestinians Pashtun Polish Portuguese Quebec Romani Romanian Russian Scottish Serb Slavic Somali Spanish Tatar Thai Turkish Ukrainian Uyghur Venezuelan Vietnamese Welsh
Manifestations Anti-LGBTQ rhetoric SPLC-designated list of anti-LGBTQ hate groups Anti-LGBTQ movement in the US Anti-trans movement in the UK Anti-Zionism Blood libel Bullying Cancel culture Capital punishment for homosexuality Compulsory sterilization Corrective rape Counter-jihad Cultural genocide Defamation Democide Disability hate crime Dog whistle Domicide Economic Education Employment Eliminationism Enemy of the people Ethnic cleansing Ethnic conflict Ethnic hatred Ethnic joke Ethnocide Excellence Gender-based dress codes Cosmetics policy High heel policy Forced conversion Freak show Gay bashing Gendercide Genital modification and mutilation Genocide examples Glass ceiling Hate crime Violence against LGBTQ people Hate group Hate speech Homeless dumping Housing Indian rolling Kill Haole Day Lavender scare LGBTQ+ grooming conspiracy theory List of people killed for being transgender Lynching Mortgage Murder music Native American mascots Occupational segregation Opposition to immigration Paper genocide Persecution Pogrom Political repression Purge Racialization Religious persecution Religious terrorism Religious violence Religious war Scapegoating Segregation academy Sentencing disparity Sexual harassment Sex-selective abortion Slut-shaming Untermensch Trans bashing Victimisation Violence against women White flight White genocide conspiracy theory Wife selling Witch hunt
Policies Age of candidacy Blood purity Blood quantum Crime of apartheid Disabilities Catholic Jewish Gender pay gap Gender roles Transphobia in the US House of Representatives Gerontocracy Gerrymandering Ghetto benches Internment Jewish quota Law for Protection of the Nation LGBTQ rights opposition MSM blood donation restrictions No kid zone Numerus clausus (as religious or racial quota) One-drop rule Racial quota Racial segregation Jim Crow laws Nuremberg Laws Racial steering Redlining Same-sex marriage (laws and issues prohibiting) Segregation age racial religious sexual Social exclusion Sodomy law State atheism State religion Ugly law Voter suppression
Countermeasures Affirmative action Anti-discrimination law Anti-racism Constitutional colorblindness Cultural assimilation Cultural pluralism Diversity, equity, and inclusion Diversity training Empowerment Fat acceptance movement Feminism Fighting Discrimination Hate speech laws by country Human rights Intersex human rights LGBT rights Nonviolence Racial integration Reappropriation Self-determination Social integration Toleration
Related topics Allophilia Amatonormativity Bias Cisnormativity Civil liberties Criminalization of homosexuality Dehumanization Diversity Multiculturalism Neurodiversity Ethnic penalty Figleaf Gender-blind Heteronormativity Historical eugenics Internalized oppression Intersectionality Masculism Medical model of disability autism Net bias Oikophobia Oppression Police brutality Political correctness Polyculturalism Power distance Prejudice Prisoner abuse Racial bias in criminal news in the United States Racism by country Racial color blindness Religious intolerance Reverse discrimination Reverse racism Second-generation gender bias Snobbery Social equity Social exclusion Social identity threat Social model of disability Social privilege Christian male white Social stigma Speciesism Stereotype threat The talk
v t e

Constitutional colorblindness is a legal and philosophical principle suggesting that the Constitution, particularly the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, should be interpreted as prohibiting the government from considering race in its laws, policies, or decisions.^[1] According to this doctrine, any use of racial classifications, whether intended to benefit or disadvantage certain groups, is viewed as inherently discriminatory and thus unconstitutional.^[2]

The concept of constitutional colorblindness can be traced back to Justice John Marshall Harlan's dissent in the Supreme Court's decision in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which upheld racial segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine. Harlan wrote,^[3]

I am of the opinion that the statute of Louisiana is inconsistent with the personal liberties of citizens, white and black, in that State, and hostile to both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution of the United States. If laws of like character should be enacted in the several States of the Union, the effect would be in the highest degree mischievous. Slavery as an institution tolerated by law would, it is true, have disappeared from our country, but there would remain a power in the States, by sinister legislation, to interfere with the blessings of freedom; to regulate civil rights common to all citizens, upon the basis of race; and to place in a condition of legal inferiority a large body of American citizens, now constituting a part of the political community, called the people of the United States, for whom and by whom, through representatives, our government is administrated. Such a system is inconsistent with the guarantee given by the Constitution to each State of a republican form of government, and may be stricken down by congressional action, or by the courts in the discharge of their solemn duty to maintain the supreme law of the land, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Although his dissent did not prevail at the time, it has since been cited in support of the view that the Constitution prohibits racial distinctions of any kind.^[4]

The doctrine gained prominence in the late 20th century as part of conservative legal arguments against affirmative action and other race-conscious government policies. Supporters argue that the Equal Protection Clause mandates a race-neutral approach, meaning that laws and policies should not differentiate between individuals based on race, ethnicity, or color.^[5]

The principle of constitutional colorblindness is grounded in an interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Advocates of colorblindness interpret this clause as requiring that all individuals be treated equally under the law, without regard to race.^[6]

Supporters of the doctrine argue that the use of race in government policies, such as affirmative action in education or employment, constitutes a violation of the equal protection guarantee, even if the intention is to remedy past discrimination. According to this view, the Constitution prohibits not only policies that disadvantage racial minorities but also those that give them preferential treatment.^[7]

The concept of constitutional colorblindness has been influential in several major Supreme Court cases involving race and equal protection:

• Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978): The Court held that while racial quotas in college admissions were unconstitutional, race could still be considered as one factor among others in a holistic admissions process. However, proponents of colorblindness argue that any consideration of race is inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause.^[8]
• Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007): The Court ruled that public school districts could not use race as the sole factor in student assignments to schools. Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion emphasized the colorblindness doctrine, stating, "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."^[9]
• Fisher v. University of Texas (2013 and 2016): This case challenged the use of race in college admissions. While the Court upheld the university's race-conscious admissions policy, the decisions also reinforced the idea that such policies are subject to strict scrutiny and must be narrowly tailored to achieve the goal of diversity.^[10]
• Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023): The Court ruled that race-based affirmative action programs in college admissions processes violate the Equal Protection Clause.^[11] Chief Justice John Roberts in his majority opinion wrote, "Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it,"^[12] and Justice Clarence Thomas affirmed his "defense of the colorblind Constitution".^[13]

Critics of constitutional colorblindness argue that it ignores the enduring impact of historical and systemic racial discrimination. They contend that race-conscious policies, such as affirmative action, are necessary to address the persistent inequalities that continue to affect marginalized communities. According to this view, treating everyone equally without acknowledging racial disparities perpetuates existing inequalities rather than correcting them.^[14]

Additionally, some legal scholars argue that the Equal Protection Clause was originally intended to protect racial minorities from oppression, and thus race-conscious remedies aimed at rectifying past injustices are consistent with the Constitution's purpose.^[15]

Constitutional colorblindness remains a central issue in the broader debate over affirmative action and racial equality in the United States. Proponents advocate for a race-neutral approach to government policies, while opponents emphasize the need for race-conscious efforts to promote diversity and correct systemic inequities. The Supreme Court's rulings on these issues continue to shape the legal landscape regarding race and equal protection.^[16]

• Equal Protection Clause
• Affirmative Action
• Plessy v. Ferguson
• Brown v. Board of Education
• Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
• Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1