The U.S. Supreme Court case Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (2013) revolved around a constitutional amendment in Michigan that prohibited discrimination or preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in public education, employment and contracting. The Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action challenged this amendment arguing it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by making it more difficult for racial minorities to advocate for policies benefiting them. However, the Supreme Court ruled 6-2 upholding Michigan's ban on affirmative action as constitutional stating that voters have the right to determine whether race-based preferences should be allowed in admissions decisions at state universities.

In the dissenting opinion for Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the court's decision undermines the protection of minorities and disregards a history of racial discrimination. She contended that by allowing Michigan voters to alter their state constitution in order to prohibit affirmative action, it unfairly burdens minority groups who would need to undertake an arduous process of constitutional amendment if they wish to reinstate such policies. This effectively creates two unequal political processes - one for those wishing to influence university admissions policy and another more difficult path for those advocating race-conscious policies. The ruling, she asserted, contradicts previous Supreme Court decisions which prohibited restructuring political processes in a way that disadvantages racial minorities. Furthermore, she criticized her colleagues' refusal to acknowledge America's ongoing struggle with racial inequality as "out of touch with reality".