Blog Archives

Michigan’s Affirmative Action Ban

The Supreme Court this afternoon heard arguments on Michigan’s “Proposal 2″, a voter-approved law that forbids the use of race in college admissions, as well as public employment and contracting. The case is Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (note that I’ve labeled my drawings “Schuette v. BAMN” because it’s shorter. BAMN stands for “By Any Means Necessary”, and comes from the challenger’s full title, Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigration Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary). But enough from me. Here are the sketches.

Lyle Denniston has the full story here.

 

Tagged with: , , ,
Posted in Arguments, Supreme Court

Fisher Fails to Finish ‘Firmative Action

On the first day of what promises to be a steamy week in Washington, at least outside the Supreme Court building, the Court announced its opinion in a long awaited affirmative action case, Fisher v. University of Texas. When the case was argued back in October it appeared that the University’s use of race as an admissions factor might be struck down.Instead, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy, the Court said such programs must meet the test of “strict scrutiny” as well as being“narrowly tailored”.

Surprisingly, for a case argued at the beginning of the term, there was but one dissenter in the 7-1 decision (Justice Kagan took no part), Justice Ginsburg.

 ”The Court rightly declines to cast off the equal protection framework …”, writes Ginsburg. “Yet it stops short of reaching the conclusion that (it) warrants.”

Justice Alito took a sip from his coffee cup.

 

Tagged with: , , , , ,
Posted in Opinions, Supreme Court

Supreme Court Revisits Affirmative Action

6a00d8341cd0df53ef017c32754913970b-pi

Nine years after deciding that race, though not quotas, could be considered in college admissions a new, somewhat more conservative Supreme Court is reconsidering affirmative action. The case against the University of Texas was brought by Abigail Fisher, a Texas high school student who says she was denied admission because of her race.

6a00d8341cd0df53ef017ee41927b9970d-800wi

The first question for Fisher’s attorney, Bert W. Rein, came from Justice Ginsburg, who along with Justices Breyer and Sotomayor, is expected to uphold the Court’s earlier position on affirmative action in college admissions. Justice Kagan, whose empty chair can be seen on the right, is not taking part in the case.

6a00d8341cd0df53ef017d3ca3e4f3970c-800wi
The more conservative members of the Court, who had been mostly silent during Rein’s argument, sprang into active questioning as Gregory Garre took the lectern to defend the university’s program.

Justice Alito, a foe of affirmative action plans who replaced Justice O’Connor, the author of the Court’s earlier opinon in Grutter v. Bollinger, asked Garre, “I thought that the whole purpose of affirmative action was to help students …from underpriviledged backgrounds, …”
6a00d8341cd0df53ef017d3ca40770970c-800wi“But you say …it doesn’t admit enough African Americans and Hispanics …from priviledged backgrounds.”

Replied Garre, “Because, Your Honor, our point is that we want minorities from different backgrounds”

6a00d8341cd0df53ef017ee41951e2970d-piJustice Kennedy, as usual the swing vote on which the case hinges, said, “So what you’re saying is that what counts is race above all.”

The term “critical mass”, refering to the proportion of minorities in the student body, was bandied back and forth with both Garre and Solicitor General Verrilli trying to avoid making it sound like a number.

6a00d8341cd0df53ef017ee419687a970d-pi
Justice Scalia to General Verrilli, “So we should stop calling it mass.”

Verrilli, “I agree.”

Scalia, “Call it a cloud or something like that.”

 

SCOTUSblog’s Amy Howe has the Plain English summary here.

Tagged with: , ,
Posted in Arguments, Supreme Court

RIP John Payton

One of the nation’s greatest civil rights attorneys NAACP Legal Defense Fund president John Payton passed away yesterday.  SC030401wide_PaytonHe is shown here arguing before the Supreme Court in Gratz v. Bollinger, April 1, 2003.

In Memoriam

Tagged with: , , , , ,
Posted in Arguments, History, Supreme Court

Use of race in school admissions argued in Supreme Court

SC061204wide_Korrell

Lawyer for Seattle parents, Harry J. F. Korrell, argues against the school district’s “open choice” policy aimed at overcoming the effects of the city’s segregated housing patterns on it’s high schools.

Arguments were also heard in a similar case from Louisville, Ky.

 

Tagged with: , ,
Posted in Arguments, Supreme Court
2013_Blawg100Honoree_300x300
TWITTER @courtartist

Blog Updates

Enter your name and email below to receive blog updates via email.