[2] The concept of constitutional colorblindness can be traced back to Justice John Marshall Harlan's dissent in the Supreme Court's decision in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which upheld racial segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine.
Slavery as an institution tolerated by law would, it is true, have disappeared from our country, but there would remain a power in the States, by sinister legislation, to interfere with the blessings of freedom; to regulate civil rights common to all citizens, upon the basis of race; and to place in a condition of legal inferiority a large body of American citizens, now constituting a part of the political community, called the people of the United States, for whom and by whom, through representatives, our government is administrated.
Supporters argue that the Equal Protection Clause mandates a race-neutral approach, meaning that laws and policies should not differentiate between individuals based on race, ethnicity, or color.
[6] Supporters of the doctrine argue that the use of race in government policies, such as affirmative action in education or employment, constitutes a violation of the equal protection guarantee, even if the intention is to remedy past discrimination.
Proponents advocate for a race-neutral approach to government policies, while opponents emphasize the need for race-conscious efforts to promote diversity and correct systemic inequities.