Supreme Court remands affirmative action case
After months of anticipation, the Supreme Court on Monday issued its ruling in the affirmative action case Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin.
June 24, 2013 at 09:13 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
After months of anticipation, the Supreme Court on Monday issued its ruling in the affirmative action case Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. And that ruling was … not really a ruling at all.
Instead, the high court remanded the case back to the 5th Circuit in a 7-1 decision holding that the appeals court “did not hold the university to the demanding burden of strict scrutiny” required by the previous affirmative action cases Grutter v. Bollinger and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.
The 5th Circuit found that the university's race-conscious admissions program was constitutional as long as UT adopted it “in good faith.” But writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy made it clear that the high court believes the program must meet a higher standard to receive a stamp of approval.
“A university must make a showing that its plan is narrowly tailored to achieve the only interest that this Court has approved in this context: the benefits of a student body diversity that 'encompasses a . . . broad array of qualifications and characteristics of which racial or ethnic origin is but a single though important element,'” he wrote.
Abigail Fisher sued UT after it denied her admission, arguing that she was rejected because she is white. The university automatically accepts applicants who graduate in the top 10 percent of their high school classes—which Fisher did not—in an effort to ensure racial diversity. Remaining applicants are admitted or rejected based on multiple factors, including race.
In its 2003 decision in Grutter, the court upheld the University of Michigan Law School's affirmative action program, ruling that the university had a compelling interest in achieving a diverse student body. At that time, the court found that universities could consider race in admissions until the number of minority students reached a “critical mass.”
During oral arguments in Fisher last October, several of the justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, asked lawyers for both sides to define that “critical mass.” Both sides were reluctant to do so, however, perhaps because by identifying a precise number, they risked establishing a quota system, which the Supreme Court has banned.
Other justices, such as Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argued that black students are still underrepresented at UT-Austin and that studies show that many minority students still feel isolated on campus.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the lone dissenter in today's ruling. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case.
For more InsideCounsel coverage of the case, see:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250