Found an Alice in Wonderland, 14th amendment and Michigan today Could be a clue.
I was listening to "The Jeffersonian Understanding of the Constitution by Don Livingston" @ 34:35 he said "Alice in Wonderland reading of the 14th Amendment".
When searching on 14th amendment and Alice in wonderland this comes up first:
"George F. Will: A ‘Wonderland’ moment for the court"
The marble friezes above the Supreme Court chamber depict 18 great lawgivers, including Moses, Solomon, King John and William Blackstone. Come today, as the bemused or so one hopes justices listen to oral arguments in a case from Michigan, they might wonder why Lewis Carroll is not included. He would have relished the Alice-in-Wonderland argument the justices will hear, which is as follows.
Although the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment says “No state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” the following provision of Michigan’s Constitution violates the Equal Protection guarantee: No public university, college or school district may “discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”
Yes, in today’s Through-the-Looking-Glass moment, the court will be urged to declare that Michigan’s ban on unequal treatment violates the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection clause. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit divided 8-7, with five dissents has said just that, citing what is called the “political-restructuring doctrine.”
The argument is that when, in 2006, Michigan voters put in the state’s Constitution the ban against racial preferences in higher education, this complicated the task of those Michiganders who want to institute racial preferences. Instead of just lobbying the admissions officials of the state’s educational institutions, they must first mount a statewide campaign to amend Michigan’s Constitution. The Supreme Court, however, has hitherto applied the political-restructuring doctrine only against laws that change a political process in ways that diminish protection against unequal treatment, not to prevent laws granting preferential treatment.
Could there be a “political-restructuring” objection to the First Amendment? Because it proscribes “establishment of religion,” people who favor an established church cannot simply lobby Congress to create this, they first must undertake the burdensome task of amending the Constitution. So, is the First Amendment a constitutionally dubious restructuring of the nation’s political process?
The article is referring to "Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action"
Question
Does an amendment to a state's constitution to prohibit race-and sex-based discrimination and preferential treatment in public university admission decisions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Conclusion
6–2 DECISION FOR SCHUETTE
PLURALITY OPINION BY ANTHONY M. KENNEDY
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not violated by an amendment to a state's constitution that prohibits sex- and race-based preferential treatment in university admissions.
George Will's article can be found at the Wash Post or beacon journal for free:
https://www.beaconjournal.com/article/20131014/OPINION/310149073
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:KkwFPv-J2sUJ:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-a-wonderland-moment-for-the-court/2013/10/11/2f8dd95c-31f1-11e3-8627-c5d7de0a046b_story.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/12-682
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/schuette-v-coalition-to-defend-affirmative-action/