WASHINGTON Court upholds school's policy

The justices also ruled Congress can force libraries to use anti-smut filters on their computers.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court upheld a university law school admissions policy that gives minorities an edge, ruling that race can be one of many factors that colleges consider when selecting their students.
The ruling today in the law-school case preserves the concept of affirmative action for minorities who might otherwise be underrepresented on top campuses, but makes clear that racial preferences must be used sparingly.
The 5-4 ruling endorsed a program at the University of Michigan law school meant to ensure a "critical mass" of minorities on campus. The program is not an illegal quota, the high court said.
A companion ruling testing the constitutionality of another, more overtly preferential affirmative action program for minority applicants was also issued today. The court struck down this second policy.
Racial diversity
Government has a compelling interest in promoting racial diversity on campus, and the law school plan is narrowly focused on that goal, the court majority said.
The ruling allows tax-supported schools, and by extension private schools and other institutions, to continue searching for ways to boost minority enrollment without violating the Constitution's guarantee against discrimination.
The University of Michigan cases are the most significant test of affirmative action to reach the court in a generation. At issue was whether racial preference programs unconstitutionally discriminate against white students.
Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer joined O'Connor.
Dissenters
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas dissented.
The two Michigan cases directly address only admissions at public, tax-supported institutions, but the court's rationale is expected to have a wide ripple through private colleges and universities, other government decision-making and the business world.
Opponents of affirmative action had hoped the Supreme Court would use this opportunity to ban most consideration of race in any government decisions. The court is far more conservative than in 1978, when it last ruled on affirmative action in higher education admissions, and the justices have put heavy conditions on government affirmative action in other arenas over the past decade.
Another ruling
In a sharply divided ruling today, the Supreme Court also decided that Congress can force the nation's public libraries to equip computers with anti-pornography filters.
The blocking technology, intended to keep smut from children, does not violate the First Amendment even though it shuts off some legitimate, informational Web sites, the court held.
The court said because libraries can disable the filters for any patrons who ask, the system is not too burdensome. The 5-4 ruling reinstates a law that told libraries to install filters or surrender federal money.
Also today, the Supreme Court struck down a state law intended to help Holocaust survivors collect on insurance policies from the Nazi era, ruling that the law was unconstitutional meddling by states in foreign affairs.
The court divided 5-4 to side with the Bush administration, which had urged the court to strike down the law. The administration said the law hurts the government's efforts to speak "with one voice" in international affairs.
The case arose because of what California called a deliberate attempt to stonewall elderly Holocaust survivors or heirs who inquired about dormant policies. The state wanted any insurer doing business there to turn over records of Holocaust-era insurance policies or risk losing their license to do business in the state.
Justice Souter wrote for the majority. Justices Rehnquist, O'Connor, Kennedy and Breyer joined him.
Dissent
Justice Ginsburg, with Justice Breyer one of two Jewish justices on the court, read a tart dissent from the bench.
"The judiciary has no warrant to serve as an expositor of the nation's foreign policy," by trumping a state law this way, Ginsburg said.
Lawyers for California argued the law does not interfere with foreign policy. Besides helping Holocaust victims, the law gives consumers information they can use to evaluate insurance companies.
Copyright 2003 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.