On Monday, conservative justices seemed open to ending decades-old Supreme Court precedent that allowed colleges and universities to admit race-conscious students. They repeatedly expressed doubt that institutions would ever be able to concede an “endpoint” in their use race to create diverse student bodies.

After almost five hours of debate, affirmative-action programs at Harvard University and University of North Carolina Chapel Hill were clearly in danger. It is unclear how wide such a decision could be and what implications it might have for other elite colleges or flagship state universities.

According to Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, overturning court precedents that race is one of many factors in admission decisions would have “profound implications” for “the nation we are and the nation we aspire too be,” she told the justices.

She said that the negative effects would have reverberations through just about every institution in America, naming the military, scientific, and corporate America.

The court’s conservatives decided to review decades of Supreme Court decisions which allowed a limited use racial classifications. They were not satisfied with the assertions of lawyers representing schools that the end was near for use of race-conscious policy. They were repeatedly questioned and admitted that they couldn’t give a specific date for the question “When will it end?”

Students for Fair Admissions’ Patrick Strawbridge said that allowing students to use their race in higher education was an exception among the court’s decisions that should have been rejected.

He stated that skin color was not considered when deciding who to seat on a jury, who you can marry or which primary schools your children can attend.

This was the most controversial hearing of the term so far. The lengthy debate required a significant time investment by the court, which typically has arguments lasting an hour. For the UNC case, the courtroom was full. At least four justices’ spouses were present — Jane Roberts (Virgini Thomas), Ashley Kavanaugh, and Patrick Jackson.

In the past, affirmative action has been upheld by the court in a narrow majority. The court’s newfound conservative supermajority proved last term that it is not afraid to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Justice Clarence Thomas is the longest-serving court member and a frequent critic of race-conscious policy. He made it clear that he does not support the goal of racial diversity within student bodies. This is something previous courts found to be a compelling interest.

Thomas told North Carolina Solicitor General Ryan Y., “I’ve heard diversity quite a lot of times and I don’t know what it means.” Park.

Park attempted to explain the educational benefits to diversity to Thomas, the second Black justice on the court. Thomas replied that he didn’t believe that, “because I’ve heard similar arguments for segregation too.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. tried to be a moderator among conservatives who wanted to move the law quickly and showed that the use or race of the law might be an exception.

Roberts has previously written conservative opinions for the court in cases limiting the Voting Rights Act, and the use race in assigning public school student grades. He had a heated exchange with Harvard’s lawyer about the possibility of a system where a student could have greater chances of being admitted “based only on” his skin color.

Lawyer Seth P. Waxman admitted that being African American, Hispanic or Asian can help you get admission.

Roberts spoke up, his voice rising.

It can be the deciding factor, Waxman said, “just like being an oboe-player in a Harvard-Radcliffe Orchestra year will be the tip.”

Roberts quickly responded: “We didn’t fight a civil war over oboe musicians. He said that he had fought a civil war against racial discrimination. It’s a serious matter. It’s crucial that you determine if granting credit solely based on skin color is based upon a stereotype. You may not be able to bring diversity of opinion in every case.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., and others, saw college admissions like a zero-sum game. Any advantage that was given to one student meant a disadvantage for the other.

Alito stated that if it’s a 100-yard sprint, then let’s assume he starts 5 yards closer to the finish.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, however, resisted the analogy. According to her, university administrators will be looking at whether minority students come from disadvantaged schools, have faced discrimination and overcome it or are from families with limited resources. She said that schools are looking at all factors to ensure students start off as equals.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the court’s first Black female justice. She expressed concern that if a university can value the different backgrounds and personal characteristics of applicants but not race, it could create more equal-protection problems than it is solving.

She presented the idea of a student writing an essay on why UNC was important for him and compared it with a Black student who wanted to give a different reason.

(Jackson resigned from Harvard because she was a Harvard board member and one of her daughters goes to Harvard.

Many conservative justices have repeatedly returned to the question, “When is it no longer necessary for college admissions?” Justices referred to Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003’s majority opinion. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s opinion stated that racial preferences are unlikely to be necessary in 25 years.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked Park, “What if it continues being difficult in another 25 year” to create a diverse student population. What will you say when you get up in 2040? Is it still being defended like this is indefinite? It’s going