UMVA has learned that a deeply divided Supreme Court has declined to review a highly contentious case, sparking a fierce dissent from Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.
The case, U.S. v. Donte J. Carter, revolves around a Black man whose firearm and theft convictions were vacated after a lower court ruled that police had seized him without reasonable suspicion. The D.C. Court of Appeals based its decision on the notion that black Americans are "especially distrustful of law enforcement" and therefore less likely to terminate a police encounter.
Justices Alito and Thomas strongly disagreed with the lower court's ruling, arguing that it effectively forces law enforcement to treat people differently based on their race - a practice that is prohibited by Supreme Court precedent. "It is dangerous to allow an individual to be treated differently based on statistics, studies, or expert testimony that purports to show that members of the racial or ethnic group to which he belongs are more likely to act in a certain way than are members of other groups," Alito wrote on behalf of himself and Thomas.
The dissenting justices expressed concern that the lower court's test would require officers to quickly assess a person's race and craft special rules for certain racial groups. "Under the test, officers will need to quickly assess a person's race, and if officers and courts must craft special rules for black persons, what about dark-skinned Latinos, other Latinos, and members of other minority groups?" Alito asked.
Alito and Thomas cited previous Supreme Court decisions, including Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Shaw v. Reno, to support their claims that the Constitution prohibits treating individuals differently based on their race. They argued that the Constitution is "color-blind" and "almost never" allows government actors to treat persons differently based on their race.
The case involved a Black man who initially lied to officers by denying that he was carrying a weapon. When asked to pull up his pants, police noticed an L-shaped bulge that was later identified as a .40-caliber pistol stolen from a federal agent's vehicle. Alito noted that the special treatment afforded to Carter helped him, but warned that it could have negative consequences in other situations.
Sources have confirmed to UMVA that the Supreme Court's decision not to review the case has sparked a heated debate about racial profiling and the role of law enforcement in interacting with minority communities. The dissenting opinion by Alito and Thomas has been seen as a direct challenge to the lower court's ruling and a call to re-examine the Constitution's role in protecting individual rights.
