WASHINGTON — Jonathan F. Mitchell, the architect of the legislation that sharply curtailed abortions in Texas, filed a quick within the Supreme Courtroom the opposite day. He has moved on to affirmative motion.

The submitting has elicited rueful admiration from supporters of race-conscious admissions packages in larger training.

“This transient provides conservative justices with what they could nicely deem an attractive, elegant strategy to dismantling affirmative motion,” stated Justin Driver, a legislation professor at Yale.

The Texas legislation Mr. Mitchell helped devise was diabolical, critics stated, in managing to insulate a ban on most abortions after six weeks of being pregnant from efficient judicial evaluate. His new friend-of-the-court transient, against this, made a easy level.

He informed the justices that they needn’t determine whether or not affirmative motion is barred by the Structure. All they want do, he wrote, is apply the plain language of a federal civil rights legislation, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars race discrimination by establishments that obtain federal cash.

The Supreme Courtroom, which is able to hear arguments this fall in challenges to the admissions packages at Harvard and the College of North Carolina, has lengthy held that the statute mirrors the Structure’s equal safety clause. If an admissions program satisfies the Structure, the courtroom stated, it should even be lawful beneath Title VI. That was a mistake, Mr. Mitchell wrote.

His argument depends on textualism, which is the dominant mode of statutory interpretation on the Supreme Courtroom today, and never solely on the political proper. “We’re all textualists now,” Justice Elena Kagan, a liberal, famously stated.

Textualism is concentrated on the phrases of the statutes lawmakers have enacted fairly than on their intentions or expectations. It could possibly result in outcomes that please liberals, as when the courtroom dominated in 2020 in Bostock v. Clayton County that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protected homosexual and transgender staff. The plain phrases of that provision, which barred discrimination based mostly on intercourse, required the consequence, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, a conservative, wrote for almost all.

It didn’t matter, he wrote, that the lawmakers who had voted for the statute didn’t perceive that they had been hanging a blow for homosexual rights.

Quickly after the Bostock determination landed, Jeannie Suk Gersen, a legislation professor at Harvard, wrote in The New Yorker that “the courtroom’s opinion additionally has some potential land mines for liberals” and that “there’s purpose to assume that Bostock’s formalist articulations on discrimination will bolster a conservative determination to dismantle race-conscious admissions insurance policies.”

Final week, Professor Gersen stated Mr. Mitchell’s strategy “is probably going a convincing technique for Justice Gorsuch at a minimal and possibly different justices” and “avoids tougher constitutional questions, making it simpler for the courtroom to carry that contemplating race in admissions is illegal.”

Mr. Mitchell’s transient, filed on behalf of America First Authorized Basis, a conservative group led by senior members of the Trump administration, stated that “the command of Title VI is evident, unambiguous and absolute.”

The statute says: “No particular person in the USA shall, on the bottom of race, coloration or nationwide origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the advantages of or be subjected to discrimination beneath any program or exercise receiving federal monetary help.”

The equal safety clause of the 14th Modification, against this, says that “no state” shall “deny to any particular person inside its jurisdiction the equal safety of the legal guidelines.”

Previously, the Supreme Courtroom has stated the statute tracks the Structure, counting on statements from lawmakers who had voted for it.

“Examination of the voluminous legislative historical past of Title VI,” Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. wrote in his controlling opinion in 1978 in Regents of the College of California v. Bakke, “reveals a congressional intent to halt federal funding of entities that violate a prohibition of racial discrimination just like that of the Structure.”

Mr. Mitchell wrote that Justice Powell’s consideration of legislative historical past was each illegitimate and incomplete, as “there are many ground statements from legislators who insisted that Title VI would certainly require colorblindness, in accordance with the unambiguous statutory textual content.”

In 2003, in Grutter v. Bollinger, the courtroom upheld the race-conscious admissions program on the College of Michigan’s legislation faculty on constitutional grounds and added, in a single sentence, that this meant a problem beneath Title VI should additionally fail.

Taking account of legislative historical past to find out what a statute means has fallen out of favor on the Supreme Courtroom, Professor Driver stated.

“In fashionable authorized circles, textualism is ascendant and legislative historical past has turn into near verboten,” he stated. “The transient presents the courtroom a chance not solely to wield textualism on behalf of a right-wing agenda but additionally to dunk on nontextualist justices from the Seventies. It nicely could show to be an irresistible twofer.”

Mr. Mitchell filed his transient, on behalf of neither aspect, within the problem to the admissions insurance policies of Harvard, a personal establishment topic to Title VI. The College of North Carolina, a public establishment, is topic to each Title VI and the equal safety clause.

Mr. Mitchell’s transient is not going to please all of his ordinary conservative allies, a lot of whom would like a sweeping and everlasting constitutional ruling. However Mr. Mitchell urged the Supreme Courtroom to keep away from the constitutional subject, calling it “a a lot nearer query, as a result of it’s removed from clear that the textual content and unique which means of the equal safety clause preclude using remedial racial preferences.”

A ruling based mostly on the statute, he added, would depart open, a minimum of theoretically, the opportunity of additional laws. Harvard might additionally, Mr. Mitchell wrote, flip down federal cash.

Harvard, for its half, informed the justices that Congress is free to revise Title VI if it disagrees with the Supreme Courtroom’s conclusion that it mimics the equal safety clause. “If Congress wished to amend Title VI to ban personal universities from contemplating race in admissions, it might accomplish that,” the transient stated, “but it surely has not.”