It looks like in the US supreme court decision the justices clarified the law and kicked it back to the lower courts. The final case hasn't been ruled on yet. In the past, majority groups were expected to have stronger evidence for discrimination. This decision changes that. I don't think that's a great decision for minorities and I'm not sure using the current US Supreme court's motivations, which don't seem to be at all concerned with precedent, are a great basis for how we should frame our understanding of racial justice.
The UK case seems to indicate a ruling on the narrow principle of 'positive action' which is fundamentally distinct from 'positive discrimination.' You seem to be mixing those two ideas up a bit.
The judicial system is inherently conservative. It's designed to be that way. And just because a judge or group of judges decides something doesn't make it the right thing to do. This whole 'reverse discrimination' push is simply undoing the progress of the civil rights movement, unfortunately.
Yes.