( CNN ) -- In the aftermath of the decision in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action , there is one thing ( and perhaps only one thing ) that most everyone agrees upon : It is a game changer . The Background : A game changer . By Jonathan Turley . After decades of conflicting and increasingly convoluted decisions on the use of race as a criterion for university admissions , the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the citizens of Michigan could constitutionally ban the use of race and other criteria in the selection of students . For some , the court affirmed the right to establish a colorblind selection process . For others , the court engaged in an act of willful blindness to the racial realities of society . The court has been struggling in this area for decades . In 1977 , in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke , the court allowed only a limited use of race for the purpose of achieving `` diversity '' in classes . The Medical School at the University of California at Davis set aside 16 of the 100 seats for minorities . The court ruled it unconstitutional but was deeply divided on why -- a harbinger for the line of cases that would follow Bakke . The court spent nearly the next 40 years spinning on the ice of affirmative action , unable to get traction or a clear direction . The court 's split decision in 2003 is illustrative . It was presented with two cases involving the use of race as a criterion in the undergraduate and the law school admissions processes at University of Michigan . In one case , Gratz v. Bollinger , the court voted 6-3 that the university violated equal protection in the selection of students based on race and other criteria . It then ruled 5-4 , in Grutter v. Bollinger , to uphold race criteria in the admissions process for Michigan Law School . However , Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stressed that the court `` expects that 25 years from now , the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today . '' O'Connor 's statement was ridiculed by many ( including some on the court ) , but seemed to capture the fluidity of the court 's position on the use of race . In 2013 , the court again seemed to produce a nuanced and uncertain decision in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin , where the court rejected a lower court decision upholding the use of race in admissions at the University of Texas . However , it did not prohibit the use of race but rather sent back the case for the imposition of a more demanding test of `` strict scrutiny . '' These cases offered little hope that a `` bright line '' could be reached to bring resolution of the issue and meant that the court would continue to referee such matters . That line , however , may now have been reached in Schuette . Michigan voters responded to the divided results in the Grutter and Gratz cases to bring their own clarity to the area . They passed a constitutional amendment that required an entirely colorblind process for selection at state schools ( as well as barring schools from giving an advantage to some students based on other immutable characteristics like gender ) . By a vote of 6-2 , the court ruled this week that citizens could do precisely that . In so ruling , the court for the first time created an avenue that could end this longstanding controversy by vote of citizens . Seven states have already passed such rules , and this decision is likely to encourage others to follow . In my seminar on the Constitution and the Supreme Court , my students and I debate leading cases each term and voted both on the merits and on our prediction as to the outcome in that `` other '' court . So , in our recent vote , the GW Supreme Court voted overwhelmingly , 11-4 , to reverse the Sixth Circuit and allow Michigan voters to make such a decision . The class also predicted the result in the case -- again by an 11-4 vote . Here are two of our `` GW justices '' who viewed the case in manifestly different ways : . AGAINST : Ruling reflects 'sad history ' of racial hurdles . By Yvette Butler . The importance of the court 's decision is amplified by our sad history of placing hurdles to bar minorities from meaningful participation in the political process . Race-conscious policies , by the court 's own admission , are highly controversial and should be confronted in the political process through healthy debate . However , the debate means little if no real action can be taken to implement what was decided through that debate . The Michigan Constitution already contained a process for deciding university admissions policies . Michigan residents had ample voice through elections to choose members of a board that were an integral part of this process . If the board members were not advancing the will of the people , residents could have made their voices heard through elections . This switch from a highly accessible and accountable board to a state constitutional amendment is an impermissible restructuring of the political process which will only serve to cripple the effectiveness of public debate and severely disadvantage the minority . By adopting a change on a state constitutional level , the issue is further removed from the hands of the people . Even assuming that a healthy debate will take place , the decision places a significant hurdle in the way of any concrete action . This decision goes against clearly established Supreme Court precedent that it is unconstitutional to inhibit meaningful access to the political process for minorities . The Supreme Court plays a special role in our system . It must uphold constitutional rights , especially in the face of majority rule where that majority seeks to take a voice away from the minority . FOR : Court should not undo the will of the people . By Vincent C. Cirilli . The political process yields favorable and unfavorable results . As long as the government does not interfere with the right to participate in the process , and as long as the results of that process are constitutional , the courts can not take power from voters and undo the will of the people . The Supreme Court made clear that Schuette was not about the constitutional validity of affirmative action programs . Instead , the case was about whether Michigan 's constitutional amendment barring affirmative action interfered with the right to participate in the political process . The court correctly ruled that the process functioned properly . What did that process entail ? Michigan 's Proposal 2 , a statewide referendum , was approved by 58 % of Michigan voters . The amendment the voters passed does not restrict speech , deny voting rights , or impose majoritarian barriers designed to prevent the minority from achieving its goals . In other words , the amendment does not interfere with the political process . Voters are not silenced , the issues are not censored , and the debate surrounding affirmative action is not over . If the role of the court is to perfect democracy , then the court fulfilled its role in not overturning Michigan 's amendment . A ruling to the contrary would undermine democracy by removing this debate from the public sphere and leaving its resolution in the hands of nine unelected judges . Some may disagree with Michigan 's amendment . That is to be expected and encouraged . The political process is always ongoing and perhaps the issue will be revisited . In the meantime , the debate will continue , ideas will be shared , and the political process will march forward . Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion .
Jonathan Turley and his law firm debate the ruling in the California affirmative action case . Yvette Smith argues the amendment takes the issue out of the hands of the people . Vincent C. Cirilli argues that the will of the voters should not be ignored . But all agree : The ruling is a game changer .