UC Law Constitutional Quarterly


In this short reply to the article by Thomas Wood, Professors Amar and Caminker argue that Mr. Wood has seriously misread and misunderstood the Supreme Court cases most relevant to Proposition 209's constitutionality. Importantly, Mr. Wood has failed to account for specific and straightforward language in the cases that directly contradicts his reading. Moreover, Mr. Wood fails to interpret the language of each opinion in the context of the entire case - and in the context of equal protection law generally - as careful constitutional analysis requires. For these reasons, Professors Amar and Caminker continue to believe that if lower courts faithfully apply existing Supreme Court caselaw - as they should whether or not the existing Supreme Court cases were rightly decided - Proposition 209's constitutionality is dubious.