The liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court unanimously struck down a decades-old college grant program. The state had been awarding taxpayer-funded aid through race-based eligibility rules. The ruling hit Wisconsin’s Minority Undergraduate Retention Grant Program. The program was established in 1985 and was administered by the state’s Higher Educational Aids Board.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court issued its decision on June 18, 2026, in Rabiebna v. Higher Educational Aids Board. It is a taxpayer challenge brought by five Wisconsin residents. They objected to the distribution of public money under identity-based eligibility rules.
Chief Justice Annette Ziegler wrote the majority opinion. The court treated the case as both a taxpayer-standing fight and an equal-protection fight against a state agency. They also said the taxpayers had standing to sue.
The state classified students by race, ancestry, and national origin, then tied aid to those classifications. That’s unconstitutional, and the Court had little choice. It’s still surprising that a liberal court would follow the Constitution.
Not everyone was pleased with having to make this decision. Two of the most liberal justices, Chief Justice Jill Karofsky and Susan Crawford, deeply regretted the loss of racially discriminatory programs.
Jonathan Turley writes:
In her concurrence, Chief Justice Karofsky captured the sweeping, open-ended rationales used for such programs:
“Why have we not learned from our past; why are we not willing to recognize the harms this country has caused to those who are marginalized, disempowered, or disenfranchised? Why, instead of wielding the Equal Protection Clause as a sword against racism, do we employ it to shield against the promise of equality for all? The answer appears to be because we have failed to fully recognize how societal and governmental practices have long continued to enforce a preference for White Americans and to burden Black Americans and those of other disadvantaged races or backgrounds.”
These justices would continue race-based programs indefinitely under the claim that there is a “preference for White Americans” in programs that focus purely on academic achievement or specific non-racial criteria, Turley wrote.
