Breaking... US Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade

Yes, but the situation is not comparable.

For a civilian university, the graduates are all put into the same worker pool as everyone else. They have certain advantages in competition over others, but nothing hard or defined. In a military academy, the graduates are placed in positions of command authority as commissioned officers over an entirely different class of people. Experience has shown that having a grossly disproportionate racial make-up between officers and enlisted does 'Bad Things' (TM) to discipline, morale and operations (eg a unit with lots of black soldiers, but predominantly white officers).

A graduate from Harvard can't order a subordinate to risk their life from a particularly violent office copier. A graduate from West Point can order their subordinate to charge a machinegun on pain of incarceration. The resulting perception problems and their practical effects from a notable racial imbalance between the two groups is (a) obvious, and (b) demonstrated from experience.

The difference is between one example attempting to redress the socio-economic imbalance across races, the other is attempting to redress the functioning of the nation's military.

I believe legacy admissions fail an 'equality' test as well, a point specifically brought up by both Gorsuch and Sotomayor. But that doesn't make them illegal. "Legacy" or "donor" is not addressed in either the 14th Amendment or the Civil Rights Act.

There are always exceptions to default positions the Constitution, the color-blindness isn't an exception, be it from voting to guns. That exception has to meet strict scrutiny. It must be shown to directly further a definable government interest and be narrowly tailored to meet the requirement. National Security and the operation of its executive organs is a very definable government interest, and there is practical effect which was submitted into evidence as part of the Amicus Curie brief of The United States. However, it's worth noting that the Court here didn't actually specifically state that the military academy exemption was valid. It just said that it was definably different (a point somewhat disagreed with by Sotomayor), and they had not been asked to comment upon it. It may or may not pass muster, and it will be addressed if the court finds it necessary to take a case on the matter.

"The unanimous opinion of the 5th Circuit below is affirmed".

As to the consequence, that may depend on the reactions.

To quote the concurrence from Judge Ho: "Those who commit or criminally threaten domestic violence have already demonstrated an utter lack of respect for the rights of others and the rule of law. So merely enacting laws that tell them to disarm is a woefully inadequate solution. Abusers must be detained, prosecuted, and incarcerated. And that’s what the criminal justice system is for. I concur"