The Supreme Court’s move allows Jackson to participate in an adversarial case

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court took a step Friday that will allow incoming Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first black woman on the court, to sit in a case that could lead to an end to the use of race in college admissions.

Jackson, who joined the court June 30 after the retirement of Justice Stephen Breyer, vowed during her confirmation hearing to dismiss the case related to Harvard’s admissions policy because she was a member of the school’s board of trustees.

The Harvard dispute was joined by a similar lawsuit involving the University of North Carolina. The court split the case in two, allowing Jackson to hear arguments and vote on the North Carolina case. Harvard is a private institution, while North Carolina is a public university.

Jackson’s involvement appears unlikely to change the outcome on a conservative 6-3 court that is skeptical of the role of race in education, voting and other areas.

Arguments on one of the most anticipated issues of the new term are likely to take place in November or December, but no date has yet been announced.

Jackson served on Harvard’s Board of Trustees from 2016 until spring. It is made up of alumni and is one of Harvard’s two governing bodies. She is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School.

Three other justices also received their law degrees from Harvard: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch. Roberts was also a student at Harvard, and Kagan was dean of the law school for a time.

But none of the other judges have a current or recent role at the university.

Federal law requires all judges to recuse themselves from cases in which their “impartiality may reasonably be called into question,” including close ties to a party, financial interest in the outcome or involvement in an earlier stage of the case.

The court has taken similar steps before. In 2020, Justice Sonia Sotomayor found a conflict in a two-state dispute over presidential electors. The court abandoned plans to hear them together and eventually came up with its main decision in the case, in which all judges participated.