Chief Justice Roberts said of Souter in a statement released by the Supreme Court:

Justice David Souter served our Court with great distinction for nearly twenty years. He brought uncommon wisdom and kindness to a lifetime of public service. After retiring to his beloved New Hampshire in 2009, he continued to render significant service to our branch by sitting regularly on the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for more than a decade. He will be greatly missed.

Souter’s legacy will be defined by two key aspects of his personal and judicial character. First, Souter was remarkable for his shyness and humility. A lifelong bachelor, Souter avoided the DC cocktail circuit, preferring nights alone reading. He was known to work twelve-hour days and eat a simple lunch of yogurt and an apple, the latter of which he would eat through to the core. His relatively early retirement was driven in large part by his desire to spend more time in his hometown of Weare, New Hampshire, at peace with his solitary walks and massive collection of books.

Second, Souter was famous for his “defection” to the Court’s liberal wing. When nominated to the Supreme Court bench, Souter’s “paper trail” was practically nonexistent. He had spent the vast majority of his career as a state court judge in New Hampshire, and had barely moved into his chambers at the First Circuit Court of Appeals when he was tapped for the Supreme Court, so nobody knew exactly where he stood on the controversial legal issues of the day. When he took the bench, it was revealed that he was much more of a dispositional conservative than an ideological one, reluctant to make sweeping decisions and upset settled law.

It was this conservatism that led him to join the joint plurality opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which preserved the core holding of Roe v. Wade by a bare five-vote majority. As he said in announcing the judgement of the Court from the bench:

The Court's duty in the present case is clear.

In 1973, it confronted the already-divisive issue of governmental power to limit personal choice to undergo abortion, for which it provided a new resolution based on the due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

A decision to overrule Roe's essential holding under the existing circumstances would address error, if error there was, at the cost of both profound and unnecessary damage to the Court's legitimacy, and to the Nation's commitment to the rule of law.

Souter’s decision to uphold Roe infuriated conservatives, and helped give rise to the modern conservative legal movement whose job it is, in large part, to ensure that “no more Souters” are appointed to the bench. Souter, the dispositionally conservative liberal Republican Justice, almost certainly leaves this world as the last of his kind. His jurisprudence, whatever its flaws might have been, speaks to a now-bygone romanticism which suggests that the Court and the Constitution can rise above ideology and partisan politics and bring the country together. It is the romanticism of the man who preferred the thick bonds of his small New England town to the bright lights of Washington, who spent his post-retirement career engaged in nonpartisan civic education initiatives, who believed in an America that might no longer exist.

That consent decree originated from a case called Luevano v. Campbell. Angel Luevano, the lead plaintiff, was a Hispanic man who failed the Professional and Administrative Careers Examination, a test that screened civil service candidates. Luevano, on behalf of himself and other black and Hispanic candidates who failed the exam, sued the government, arguing that the test had a “disparate impact” since black and Hispanic candidates failed the test at higher rates than whites. Instead of fighting to retain the test, the government, in the lame-duck days of Jimmy Carter, entered a binding consent decree, requiring them to develop new testing that did not have a racially disparate impact.

Unfortunately, the government was not able to come up with a test that was both effective and non-disparate in its impact. As the government put it in its motion to terminate the consent decree:

OPM has struggled to develop any test that meets the Decree’s stringent adverse impact, validity, and notice requirements. In the first decade after entering into the Decree, OPM developed six different exams that it hoped could replace the PACE. These exams were “developed with significant agency input.” Each was subject to separate and rigorous validation studies. Id. All selection methods were considered to have good validity, and several were found to have high validity. But, “[u]nfortunately, the OPM studies also found that those selection methods which were most valid also had the greatest adverse impact.” Thus, OPM was unable to proceed with those exams, even though they showed “no overall unfairness against minorities.”

The consent decree, in effect, prevents the federal government from implementing a valid and uniform civil service exam.

The lack of effective and uniform examination has resulted in federal agencies adopting a range of dubious tests to screen applicants. A particularly egregious example comes from the Federal Aviation Administration’s air traffic control hiring. As Substacker Trace Woodgrains has reported, the FAA, in an effort to control for the disparate impact of a valid job entrance examination, required candidates to take a biographical questionnaire to be eligible for air traffic control positions. Candidates needed to score 114 out of 179 on this biographical questionnaire to avoid being culled from the recruitment pool. Candidates earned these points by “correctly” answering questions like this:

and this:

How did this questionnaire “improve” diversity? A FAA employee told members of the National Black Coalition of Federal Aviation Employees what answers to select. As a result, numerous qualified candidates, many of whom spent substantial amounts of money training to become air traffic controllers, were disqualified, and the government’s ability to recruit the best people for this important job was compromised. With the Luevano consent decree gone, the federal government will be able to establish uniform and effective selection methods for employees, and nonsense like this questionnaire can be averted.

Diversity in the federal workforce is a fine goal. The federal government should recruit prospective candidates from diverse backgrounds to ensure everyone has the knowledge and opportunity necessary to have a chance at entering the civil service. But when it comes to selection, the government owes it to the American people to pick the best possible person for the job. Ending the Luevano consent decree and bringing back effective entrance examinations for civil service candidates is an important step in that direction.

Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariff policy has two main components. First, all foreign goods, excepting those covered by the US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement and certain energy and raw material products, will be subject to a 10 percent baseline tariff, set to go into effect on April 5th. Second, countries deemed to have engaged in unfair trade practices, such as instituting tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers and currency manipulation, will receive a “reciprocal” tariff on top of the 10 percent baseline, effective April 9th.

The Trump White House justifies its new tariffs with reference to fairness and the “Golden Rule.”

Today’s action simply asks other countries to treat us like we treat them. It’s the Golden Rule for Our Golden Age.

They claim that American workers have been taken advantage of by wily foreigners as previous administrations stood by and watched. Finally, they argue that tariffs will restore economic prosperity and bring jobs back to the United States.

As convincing as this reasoning might sound, a quick glance at the tariffs Trump is actually implementing will reveal that his policy is less a response to actual malfeasance by foreigners than it is a reflection of his administration’s entrapment in a paranoid nativist fever-dream.

Let’s look first at the “reciprocal tariffs.” A reciprocal tariff is usually a response to a tariff implemented on one’s exports by another country. For instance, if Nicaragua were to implement a 15 percent tariff on all American goods, a “reciprocal tariff” would be America tariffing Nicaraguan goods at 15 percent, matching the rate at which our goods were taxed. Reciprocal tariffs punish other countries for tariffing our goods and prevent those countries from taking advantage of us through uneven trade barriers. If Trump really only implemented true reciprocal tariffs, there would be little to complain about.

However, reciprocal tariffs are difficult to implement. If we want to retaliate dollar-for-dollar against other countries’ tariffs, non-tariff barriers, and currency manipulation, we would have to engage in extensive research and calculations to determine just how much we are being charged. The Trump administration apparently had little patience for this hard work. Instead, they calculated their “reciprocal tariff” rate by taking a country’s trade surplus with the United States, dividing it by that country’s exports to the United States, and multiplying that number by 1/2 (the 1/2 multiplier is a “discount” given out by Trump, apparently because he’s just that nice of a guy). The assumption underlying this calculation is that bilateral trade imbalance would be driven to zero in absence of trade barriers. As the US Trade Representative website explaining the tariff calculations tells us:

While individually computing the trade deficit effects of tens of thousands of tariff, regulatory, tax and other policies in each country is complex, if not impossible, their combined effects can be proxied by computing the tariff level consistent with driving bilateral trade deficits to zero. If trade deficits are persistent because of tariff and non-tariff policies and fundamentals, then the tariff rate consistent with offsetting these policies and fundamentals is reciprocal and fair.

This assumption is completely insane. As Jeremey Horpedahl and Phil Magness of the Cato Institute point out, deficits resulting from mutually beneficial trade aren’t detrimental, and there is no reason to expect all bilateral trade deficits to approach zero. They give the example of small tropical nations that produce bananas: we might want to buy their bananas, but they might not want to buy any of our goods. That doesn’t mean that their selling us bananas represents them “ripping off” the United States, or that their not buying our goods is the result of some secret trade barrier.

The fact that countries can run bilateral trade surpluses with the US without having any trade barriers presents a major stumbling block for Trump’s tariff policy. As Roge Karma writes in The Atlantic:

[T]here is no clear or obvious path that countries could take to get those tariffs removed even if they wanted to. Countries can remove all of their trade restrictions and still run a trade surplus. South Korea, Mexico, and Canada, for example, export more to us than they import from us despite imposing virtually no trade barriers.

Finally, even when the White House does point out specific “trade barriers,” it often gets things wrong. The White House identifies the European Union’s value-added tax (VAT), the equivalent of a sales tax, as a trade barrier harming American businesses. But the VAT applies to domestic and foreign goods at exactly the same rate. The only way for Europe to engage in “fair trade,” under Trump’s rubric, would be to give a tax subsidy to American imports. The White House’s desire to see foreigners scamming us around every corner has led them to vilify other countries’ perfectly harmless policies.

As a result, American consumers will be forced, for no good reason, to pay exorbitant taxes on imported goods, including a total rate of 54% on Chinese goods (subject to an initial 20% tariff) and 30% on European goods. These price increases will wallop an American public already stretched thin by inflation.

At last, a brief word on the universal 10% tariff barrier. There is no justification, even theoretical, for this policy. Included in the 10% tariff will be goods, such as coffee and bananas, that the US simply cannot produce at scale as well as other countries. Also included will be clothing and simple manufactured goods, which are currently made overseas since the American workers that used to make them are now more profitably employed elsewhere. Anyone excited to drop out of college and work at the sock factory?

Ultimately, Liberation Day is the product of a delusional worldview in which win-win exchanges are impossible and everyone is out to get poor old America. This is the sort of worldview we might expect of a crackpot Peronist dictator in a third-world kleptocracy. It is not one we would expect of a President of the United States, particularly one from the Republican Party, a party which is supposed to understand how free markets and voluntary trade work. Should Trump fail to change course, Republican members of Congress will need to find their courage and vote to take the President’s power to unilaterally impose tariffs away. Otherwise, they will have made everybody poorer for no reason.

Keys to Spartan Victory

With Izzo’s second national championship on the line, the Spartans will need to improve play from last weekend to advance to the Elite Eight. I have identified the following as areas as key to making sure the Spartans advance to the next round.

• The Spartans elite rebounding is an essential key to the Spartans victory this evening. Currently, Michigan State is the 2nd ranked team in rebounding margin. Meanwhile, the Rebels struggle on the glass, ranking 330th in the stat. We should expect that Michigan State led by the tenacious rebounder, Jaxon Kohler, will get plenty of second chance points against the Rebels.

• Michigan State perimeter defense will also be key in the game, countering Ole Miss’ hot three point shooting in the tournament. Through the tournament, Ole Miss has made 19 of 39 attempts from deep, which is around 49%. Thankfully for Spartans fans, the team ranks 1st in three point percentage defense with opponents only shooting 27.8% against the team. If Michigan States defense plays as they have all season they shouldn’t have an issue slowing down Ole Miss’ offense.

• The final key to a Spartan victory is simple, Jase Richardson. Despite his struggles in the last match up, Jase Richardson is a star! If he plays like the top 10 pick many expect him to be, the Spartan will cruise to a victory.

Score Prediction

I believe the Spartans will win tonight's game 78 to 64 with strong performances from Jase Richardson and Coen Carr. Leading to an exciting game on Sunday against either Michigan or Auburn.

In a statement from the office of University President Santa Ono, university leadership cited recent executive actions from the Trump administration targeting DEI programs at publicly funded universities.

Leaders from across the university worked intensely and in close partnership with national associations, policy advisers and others to navigate the many complicated implications of new federal directives. Since this work began, federal actions against DEI programming have intensified.

• Last Thursday, the Fourth Circuit of Appeals issued a decision allowing the enforcement of two related executive orders: Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity and Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.

• That same day, another executive order, Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities, directed the Secretary of Education to take steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and demanded further scrutiny of diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

• Last month, the Department of Education issued a Dear Colleague Letter that interprets the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision striking down race-based affirmative action in college admissions to apply to other university policies and programs beyond admissions decisions.

Based on our assessment of input from various stakeholders regarding our DEI programs – along with recent federal actions – and after conversations with Regents, university leaders, deans and government officials, we are implementing the following changes, effective immediately, in alignment with many of our peers at public and private institutions.

• The Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (ODEI) and the Office for Health Equity and Inclusion (OHEI) will close. Student-facing services in ODEI will shift to other offices focused on student access and opportunity.

• The DEI 2.0 Strategic Plan, the umbrella strategy for schools, colleges and units, will be discontinued, along with DEI 2.0 unit plans, related programming, progress reporting, training and funding. Individual leads, who have supported DEI efforts in schools, colleges and units, will refocus their full effort on their core responsibilities.

• All units will evaluate their web presence to reflect the status of current programmatic directions and for compliance with federal executive orders and guidance.

• The decision to end the use of diversity statements in faculty hiring, which was made earlier this academic year, will be applied universitywide; and statements related to a person’s commitment to DEI will no longer be solicited or considered in admissions, hiring, promotion, awards, annual reviews or other assessments for faculty and staff. 

• The Office of the General Counsel will initiate an expedited review to ensure all policies, programs and practices comply with federal law and guidance.

The University assures students that the end of DEI will not mean the end of support services and celebrations of ethnic diversity:

We remain committed to fostering an environment that values and supports every member of our community and honors diverse backgrounds, perspectives and experiences. In the months ahead, the university will increase investments in student-facing programs. This will include the following.

• Expanding financial aid: As previously announced, we have expanded the Go Blue Guarantee to benefit families with an income of $125,000 or less. Additionally, we will continue exploring ways to further reduce the cost of attendance.

• Enhancing mental health support: We will increase mental health resources to better support all students.

• Expanding the Blavin Scholars Program1: Given its exceptional impact, we will develop a plan to expand this program to serve more students.

• Strengthening academic success: We will explore ways to enhance student success through improved advising, counseling and pre-professional guidance. Additionally, we will continue investing in innovative approaches, such as our 24/7 AI tutors and a personal AI assistant for every member of our community.

• Fostering community and belonging: We will seek opportunities to expand student life programs that strengthen community, promote a sense of belonging and expand accessibility.

• Preserving key student spaces: We remain committed to maintaining vital student spaces, including the Trotter Multicultural Center, the Spectrum Center and various multicultural spaces in residence halls, all of which are open to all students.

• Celebrating cultural and ethnic programs: We will continue to support cultural and ethnic events that enrich our campus and foster a vibrant, inclusive environment.

The discontinuation of Michigan’s institutional DEI programs comes about a week after the LEAD Scholars program, a flagship diversity scholarship program sponsored by the Michigan Alumni Association, was also terminated, citing similar concerns about federal law, state law, and executive order compliance.