Fisher v. University of Texas (2013)

Last updated
Fisher v. University of Texas
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 10, 2012
Decided June 24, 2013
Full case nameAbigail Noel Fisher, Petitioner v. University of Texas at Austin, et al.
Docket no. 11-345
Citations570 U.S. 297 ( more )
133 S. Ct. 2411; 186 L. Ed. 2d 474
Argument Oral argument
Case history
PriorInjunction denied, 556 F. Supp. 2d 603 (W.D. Tex. 2008); summary judgment granted, 645 F. Supp. 2d 587 (W.D. Tex. 2009); affirmed, 631 F.3d 213 (5th Cir. 2011); rehearing en banc denied, 644 F.3d 301 (5th Cir. 2011); cert. granted, 565 U.S. 1195(2012).
SubsequentSee Fisher v. University of Texas (2016)
Holding
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals failed to apply strict scrutiny in its decision affirming the admissions policy. The decision is vacated, and the case remanded for further consideration.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityKennedy, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor
ConcurrenceScalia
ConcurrenceThomas
DissentGinsburg
Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV, Grutter v. Bollinger

Fisher v. University of Texas, 570 U.S. 297 (2013), also known as Fisher I (to distinguish it from the 2016 case), [1] is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Texas at Austin. The Supreme Court voided the lower appellate court's ruling in favor of the university and remanded the case, holding that the lower court had not applied the standard of strict scrutiny, articulated in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), to its admissions program. The Court's ruling in Fisher took Grutter and Bakke as given and did not directly revisit the constitutionality of using race as a factor in college admissions. [2]

Contents

The suit, brought by undergraduate Abigail Fisher in 2008, asked that the Court declare the university's race-conscious admissions inconsistent with Grutter, which had in 2003 established that race had an appropriate but limited role in the admissions policies of public universities. While reasserting that any consideration of race must be "narrowly tailored", with Fisher the Court did not go on to overrule Grutter, a relief for those who feared that the Court would end affirmative action. [3]

The United States District Court heard Fisher v. University of Texas in 2009 and upheld the legality of the university's admission policy in a summary judgment. The case was appealed to the Fifth Circuit which also ruled in the university's favor. The Supreme Court agreed on February 21, 2012, to hear the case. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself because she served as the Solicitor General when the Department of Justice filed an amicus curiae, or friend-of-the-court, brief in the Fisher case when it was pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On June 24, 2013, the Fifth Circuit's decision was vacated, and the case remanded for further consideration in a 7–1 decision, with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissenting. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas filed concurring opinions.

Applying the Supreme Court's 2013 decision, the Fifth Circuit once again found for UT Austin in 2014. Fisher again appealed the Fifth Circuit's decision, and in 2016 the Supreme Court upheld the lower court in a 4–3 decision.

Background

Plaintiffs Abigail Noel Fisher and Rachel Multer Michalewicz applied to the University of Texas at Austin in 2008 and were denied admission. The two women, both white, filed suit, alleging that the university had discriminated against them on the basis of their race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [4] At the time that the initial lawsuit was filed, the University of Texas at Austin accepted students in the top 10% of each Texas high school's graduating class, regardless of their race; under Texas House Bill 588, 81% of 2008's freshman class were admitted under the plan. [5] (Starting with the fall 2010 admission class, Senate Bill 175 adjusted this rule to the top 7 percent, but with no more than 75 percent of freshman slots filled under automatic admissions.) [6]

Applicants who, like Fisher, failed to gain acceptance by automatic admissions can still gain admission by scoring highly in a process that evaluates their talents, leadership qualities, family circumstances, and race. [7] [8] Fisher had a grade point average of 3.59 (adjusted to a 4.0 scale) [9] and was in the top 12% of her class at Stephen F. Austin High School. [9] She scored 1180 on her SAT (measured on the old 1600-point scale, because UT Austin did not consider the writing section in its undergraduate admissions decision for the 2008 incoming freshman class). [9] The 25th and 75th percentiles of the incoming class at UT-Austin were 1120 and 1370 respectively. [9] She was involved in the orchestra and math competitions and volunteered at Habitat for Humanity. [9]

During the case proceedings, Fisher enrolled at Louisiana State University, from which Fisher graduated in 2012 with a degree in finance. [10] [11] In 2011, Michalewicz withdrew from the case, leaving Fisher as the sole plaintiff. [7] [11]

Lower courts

In 2009, United States District Court judge Sam Sparks upheld the university's policy, finding that it meets the standards laid out in Grutter v. Bollinger. [10] That decision was affirmed by a Fifth Circuit panel composed of judges Patrick Higginbotham, Carolyn Dineen King and Emilio M. Garza. In his ruling, Higginbotham wrote that the "ever-increasing number of minorities gaining admission under this 'Top Ten Percent Law' casts a shadow on the horizon to the otherwise-plain legality of the Grutter-like admissions program, the Law's own legal footing aside". [12]

A request for a full-court en banc hearing was denied by a 9–7 vote by circuit judges. [13] [14]

Original Supreme Court hearing

In September 2011, lawyers representing Fisher filed petition seeking review from the Supreme Court. [10] [15] The plaintiff's legal team was assembled by the Project on Fair Representation, a Washington, D.C.-based legal defense fund active in attempts to overturn race-based laws, whose legal fees were paid by Donors Trust, a conservative donor-advised fund. [16] On February 21, 2012, the court granted certiorari in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case and did not participate in the court's discussions. [17] Kagan's recusal was most likely due to her involvement with the case while she was Solicitor General. [7]

The case was on the Supreme Court calendar for the term beginning in October 2012. [18] [19] There were concerns that if the Court overruled Grutter, affirmative action at public universities would end in the United States. [10] Some argued that the result of such a ruling would decrease the number of black and Hispanic students admitted to American universities while increasing the proportion of white and Asian students. [10]

Amicus Briefs

Amicus briefs were filed by Teach for America, the Asian American Legal Foundation, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the California Association of Scholars and Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, the Black Student Alliance at The University of Texas, the Mountain States Legal Foundation, the Pacific Legal Foundation, Peter Kirsanow, Stuart Taylor, Jr., the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, and many others. [20]

Oral arguments

On October 10, 2012, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case. Bert Rein represented the petitioner, Gregory G. Garre, a former Solicitor General, represented the respondent, the university, [21] and Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, Jr., presented the government's stance in support of the respondent. [22]

During the beginning of the petitioner's argument, Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg asked questions about whether the case was moot. Specifically, they were concerned with the university's arguments that Fisher would not have earned admission regardless of her race, that she had already graduated from college, and that she only named the $100 application fee as real damages. Scalia commented that the harm of racial discrimination alone created an active controversy under the Court's previous Equal Protection jurisprudence. [23]

Justices Scalia, Alito, and Roberts asked many questions about the definition of a "critical mass", which Grutter named as the central measure of diversity. Scalia started calling it a "critical cloud" after the university's lawyer failed, upon multiple requests, to define the central measure of diversity. [23] Chief Justice Roberts asked whether an applicant who was one-quarter or one-eighth Latino would be permitted by the university to check the "Latino" box. [23] Garre responded that the applicant was entitled to self-identify as any race, subject to discipline under the university's honor code, and that the university did not ever question that determination. [23]

Legal analysts concurred that the process of oral argument indicated that a majority of the justices disliked the university's position. [24]

Opinions of the Court

The opinion was issued on June 24, 2013. In a 7–1 decision, the Court vacated and remanded the Fifth Circuit's ruling. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy concluded that the Fifth Circuit failed to apply strict scrutiny in its decision affirming the admissions policy. Instead, he wrote, the Fifth Circuit held that Fisher could only challenge "whether the University's decision to use race as an admissions factor 'was made in good faith.' It presumed that the school had acted in good faith and gave petitioner the burden of rebutting that presumption". [25] Kennedy argued that per the Grutter ruling, the burden of evidence primarily lies with the university "to prove that its admissions program is narrowly tailored to obtain the educational benefits of diversity". [26]

Justice Scalia wrote a one-paragraph concurring opinion, stating that he still held the view that he first expressed in his concurring opinion in Grutter: "The Constitution proscribes government discrimination on the basis of race, and state-provided education is no exception". [27] Because the petitioner did not ask to overturn the holding in Grutter, that there is a compelling evidence in the educational benefits of diversity to justify racial preferences in university admissions, he joined with the majority in full. [28]

Justice Thomas wrote his own concurrence, stating his reasons for overturning Grutter, and ruled that the use of race in higher education admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause. Thomas concluded that Grutter was a radical departure from the Court's application of the strict scrutiny test. According to Justice Thomas, strict scrutiny had only been previously satisfied where the state actor was acting to protect national security or to remedy its own past discrimination. [29] He wrote that student body diversity was simply not important enough to override the presumption that race-based policies are unconstitutional.

Additionally, comparing such university admissions with desegregation, he wrote that "there is no principled distinction between the University's assertion that diversity yields educational benefits and the segregationists' assertion that segregation yielded those same benefits". [30] He also wrote that he believed that such admissions programs may actually be more harmful: "Blacks and Hispanics admitted to the University as a result of racial discrimination are, on average, far less prepared than their white and Asian classmates...the University's discrimination does nothing to increase the number of blacks and Hispanics who have access to a college education generally...any blacks and Hispanics who likely would have excelled at less elite schools are placed in a position where underperformance is all but inevitable because they are less academically prepared than the white and Asian students with whom they must compete". [31]

In her dissenting opinion, Justice Ginsburg explained her reasons for affirming the Fifth Circuit's ruling. Noting that the university's 10% plan admitted students regardless of their race, she argued that "the University's admissions policy flexibly considers race only as a 'factor of a factor of a factor of a factor' ... and is subject to periodic review to ensure that the consideration of race remains necessary and proper to achieve the University's educational objectives ... As I see it, the Court of Appeals has already completed that inquiry, and its judgment, trained on this Court's Bakke and Grutter pathmarkers, merits our approbation". [32]

Back to the Fifth Circuit

In June 2013, the Supreme Court ruled the Fifth Circuit had failed to apply strict scrutiny to the university's race-conscious admissions policy and sent the case back to the Fifth Circuit court. In November, the Fifth Circuit court heard oral arguments from both sides. In their questions during the arguments, Judges Patrick Higginbotham, Carolyn Dineen King, and Emilio M. Garza focused on the way the university defines "critical mass" as well as past attempts the university has made to increase minority enrollment. [33]

On July 15, 2014, the Fifth Circuit announced its decision in favor of UT Austin, with Judge Garza dissenting. In its decision, the majority wrote, "It is equally settled that universities may use race as part of a holistic admissions program where it cannot otherwise achieve diversity." [34] Fisher sought a rehearing en banc with the Fifth Circuit which was denied on 12 of November in a 10–5 decision. [35] Fisher then filed a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court. [36]

Return to the Supreme Court

On June 29, 2015, the Supreme Court announced that they would hear another challenge to UT Austin's admissions policy. The case was assigned docket number 14-981 and oral arguments were heard on December 9. [37] Legal analysts predict from the justices' questions that the Court would likely either remand the case again to the lower courts for additional fact-finding, strike down UT Austin's policy, or strike down affirmative action in college admissions nationwide. [38]

During oral arguments, Justice Scalia raised the mismatching theory and questioned whether black students admitted to top-tier schools suffer because the courses are too difficult. Scalia commented that "There are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to get them into the University of Texas, where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well. One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don't come from schools like the University of Texas. They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they're being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them." [39] The comments led to outcry from the University of Texas's African American students, [40] and spurred the creation of the Twitter hashtag #StayMadAbby. [41] As Justice Antonin Scalia died on February 13, 2016, and Justice Elena Kagan recused herself, the case was decided by the seven remaining justices. On June 23, 2016, a 4–3 vote affirmed the Fifth Circuit's decision for UT Austin.

See also

Related Research Articles

Reverse discrimination is a term used to describe discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group, in favor of members of a minority or historically disadvantaged group. Groups may be defined in terms of ethnicity, gender identity, nationality, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which involved a dispute of whether preferential treatment for minorities can reduce educational opportunities for whites without violating the Constitution. It upheld affirmative action, allowing race to be one of several factors in college admission policy. However, the court ruled that specific racial quotas, such as the 16 out of 100 seats set aside for minority students by the University of California, Davis, School of Medicine were impermissible.

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), was a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning affirmative action in student admissions. The Court held that a student admissions process that favors "underrepresented minority groups" does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause so long as it takes into account other factors evaluated on an individual basis for every applicant.

Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the University of Michigan undergraduate affirmative action admissions policy. In a 6–3 decision announced on June 23, 2003, Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the Court, ruled the University's point system's "predetermined point allocations" that awarded 20 points towards admission to underrepresented minorities "ensures that the diversity contributions of applicants cannot be individually assessed" and was therefore unconstitutional.

Texas House Bill 588, commonly referred to as the "Top 10% Rule", is a Texas law passed in 1997. It was signed into law by then governor George W. Bush on May 20, 1997. The law guarantees Texas students who graduated in the top ten percent of their high school class automatic admission to all state-funded universities.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Danny Julian Boggs</span> American judge

Danny Julian Boggs is an American attorney and a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. He was appointed to the court in 1986 and served as its Chief judge from September 2003 to August 2009. Boggs was on the short list of President George W. Bush's candidates for the U.S. Supreme Court.

<i>Hopwood v. Texas</i>

Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932, was the first successful legal challenge to a university's affirmative action policy in student admissions since Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. In Hopwood, four white plaintiffs who had been rejected from University of Texas at Austin's School of Law challenged the institution's admissions policy on equal protection grounds and prevailed. After seven years as a precedent in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Hopwood decision was abrogated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003.


The University of Texas School of Law is the law school of the University of Texas at Austin. According to Texas Law’s 2019 disclosures, 90 percent of the Class of 2019 obtained full-time, long-term bar passage required/JD advantage employment nine months after graduation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Affirmative action in the United States</span>

In the United States, affirmative action is "intended to end and correct the effects of a specific form of discrimination". It includes government-mandated, government-approved, and voluntary private programs. The programs tend to focus on access to education and employment, granting special consideration to historically excluded groups, specifically racial minorities or women. The impetus toward affirmative action is redressing the disadvantages associated with past and present discrimination. Further impetus is a desire to ensure public institutions, such as universities, hospitals, and police forces, are more representative of the populations they serve.

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007), also known as the PICS case, is a United States Supreme Court case which found it unconstitutional for a school district to use race as a factor in assigning students to schools in order to bring its racial composition in line with the composition of the district as a whole, unless it was remedying a prior history of de jure segregation. Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his plurality opinion that “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Some have credited this decision as contributing to schools resegregating in the United States, and it's been noted that American schools are more racially segregated now than in the late 1960s.

United States v. Fordice, 505 U.S. 717 (1992), is a United States Supreme Court case that resulted in an eight to one ruling that the eight public universities in Mississippi had not sufficiently integrated and that the state must take affirmative action to change this under the Equal Protection Clause. The Court found that, although the state had eliminated explicit prohibitions on the admission of black students to institutions including the University of Mississippi, Mississippi State University, and the University of Southern Mississippi, the Court of Appeals had not properly reviewed the set of discriminatory policies used by the state to suppress black enrollment at these schools. On this point, the Court stated that "[i]f the State perpetuates policies and practices traceable to its prior system that continue to have segregative effects - whether by influencing student enrollment decisions or by fostering segregation in other facets of the university system - and such policies are without sound educational justification and can be practicably eliminated, the State has not satisfied its burden of proving that it has dismantled its prior system."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jerry Edwin Smith</span> American judge

Jerry Edwin Smith is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gregory G. Garre</span> American lawyer

Gregory G. Garre is an American lawyer who served as the 44th United States Solicitor General from June 19, 2008, to January 16, 2009. He is currently a partner at Latham & Watkins, a private law firm.

United States v. Kebodeaux, 570 U.S. 387 (2013), was a recent case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act (SORNA) was constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 572 U.S. 291 (2014), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning affirmative action and race- and sex-based discrimination in public university admissions. In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause does not prevent states from enacting bans on affirmative action in education.

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College is a lawsuit concerning racial discrimination in affirmative action programs in college admissions processes. The case involves Harvard University's undergraduate admissions process which is claimed to discriminate against Asian American applicants. With its companion case Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, both seek review of the Supreme Court decision Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) which validated the use of affirmative action programs in college admissions as long as race is not used as the sole deciding factor. The two cases were originally granted certiorari and consolidated under the Harvard case in January 2022, but following the appointment of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the cases were split with Jackson recusing from the Harvard case while participating in the North Carolina one.

Edward Jay Blum is a conservative legal strategist known for his activism against affirmative action based on race and ethnicity. He connects potential plaintiffs with attorneys who are willing to represent them in "test cases" which he tries to use to set legal precedents. He is the director and sole member of the Project on Fair Representation, which he founded in 2005. According to its website, the Project focuses specifically on voting, education, contracting, employment, racial quotas, and racial reparations. Since the 1990s, Blum has been heavily involved in bringing eight cases to the United States Supreme Court. He is a key figure in the Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College lawsuit.

Johnson v. Transportation Agency, 480 U.S. 616 (1987), is the only United States Supreme Court case to address a sex-based affirmative action plan in the employment context. The case was brought by Paul Johnson, a male Santa Clara Transportation Agency employee, who was passed over for a promotion in favor of Diane Joyce, a female employee who Johnson argued was less qualified. The Court found that the plan did not violate the protection against discrimination on the basis of sex in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Fisher v. University of Texas, 579 U.S. 365 (2016) is a United States Supreme Court case which held that the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit correctly found that the University of Texas at Austin's undergraduate admissions policy survived strict scrutiny, in accordance with Fisher v. University of Texas (2013), which ruled that strict scrutiny should be applied to determine the constitutionality of the University's race-conscious admissions policy.

Affirmative action refers to activities or policies that seek to help groups that are often affected by discrimination obtain equal access to opportunities, particularly in areas such as employment and education. In the United States, in the early 2000s, the use of race, gender, and other factors in college and university admissions decisions came under attack.

References

  1. ↑ Fisher v. Univ. of Tex. ,No. 14-981 , 579 U.S. ___(2016).
  2. ↑ Fisher v. Univ. of Tex., 570 U.S. 297 (2013).
  3. ↑ Liptak, Adam (24 June 2013). "Justices Step Up Scrutiny of Race in College Entry". New York Times. Retrieved 25 June 2013.
  4. ↑ Richey, Warren (February 21, 2012). "Affirmative action in college admissions goes back before Supreme Court". The Christian Science Monitor .
  5. ↑ Wermiel, Stephen (October 11, 2011). "SCOTUS for law students: Barbara Grutter, meet Abigail Fisher". SCOTUSblog.
  6. ↑ "State Adjusts UT Admissions Policy to 'Top 7 Percent'". Archived from the original on 1 October 2016. Retrieved 27 September 2016.
  7. 1 2 3 Haurwitz, Ralph K. M. (February 21, 2012). "UT's race-conscious admission policy facing Supreme Court test". Austin American-Statesman. Archived from the original on April 29, 2012.
  8. ↑ Jeffrey Toobin. "The Other Big Supreme Court Case". The New Yorker.
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 "Joint Appendix, Abigail Noel Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (Case 11-345)" (PDF). The Supreme Court of the United States. p. 65a–66a. Retrieved October 10, 2012.
  10. 1 2 3 4 5 Liptak, Adam (October 15, 2011). "College Diversity Nears Its Last Stand". New York Times. Should the Supreme Court disavow it, the student body at the University of Texas and many other public colleges and universities would almost instantly become whiter and more Asian, and less black and Hispanic.
  11. 1 2 "Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin challenges affirmative action in higher education". The Daily Texan. February 21, 2012.
  12. ↑ Fisher v. University of Texas, 631F.3d213 (5th Cir.2011).
  13. ↑ Farmer, Liz (February 21, 2012). "U.S. Supreme Court to hear case on UT admission policies". The Daily Texan.
  14. ↑ Fisher v. University of Texas, 644F.3d301 (5th Cir.2011).
  15. ↑ Petition for Certiorari Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved June 25, 2013.
  16. ↑ Smith, Morgan (February 23, 2012). "One Man Standing Against Race-Based Laws". New York Times . Retrieved February 21, 2015.
  17. ↑ Barnes, Robert (February 21, 2012). "Supreme Court agrees to reconsider use of race in college admission decisions". The Washington Post.
  18. ↑ Denniston, Lyle (February 21, 2012), Affirmative action review due next Term, SCOTUSblog, retrieved April 6, 2012
  19. ↑ Harrop, Froma (February 28, 2012). "Racial Preferences in College Admissions: Time to Go". Real Clear Politics.
  20. ↑ "Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved March 28, 2012.
  21. ↑ Leon Lin (October 16, 2012). "Fisher v. UT affirmative action case oral arguments heard". The Tech . Vol. 132, no. 45.
  22. ↑ Daniel Fisher (June 19, 2013). "Supreme Court's Final Decisions Also A Verdict On SG Verrilli". Forbes.
  23. 1 2 3 4 "Oral Argument Transcript", U.S. Supreme Court
  24. ↑ Nick DeSantis, "Early Reactions to Fisher v Texas Arguments", Chronicle of Higher Education , October 10, 2012.
  25. ↑ Fisher v. University of Texas, 570 U.S., (slip op., at 11).
  26. ↑ Fisher v. University of Texas, 570 U.S., (slip op., at 13).
  27. ↑ Casey Scott McKay, "Fishin' with Fisher: Determining the Depth of Deference Does Not Demand Damning Deference to A Dastardly Death", 83 Mississippi Law Journal 951 (2014).
  28. ↑ Fisher v. University of Texas, 570 U.S., (Scalia, J., concurring slip op., at 1).
  29. ↑ Fisher v. University of Texas, 570 U.S., (Thomas, J., concurring slip op., at 4–5).
  30. ↑ Fisher v. University of Texas, 570 U.S., (Thomas, J., concurring slip op., at 12).
  31. ↑ Fisher v. University of Texas, 570 U. S., (Thomas, J., concurring slip op., at 17–18).
  32. ↑ Fisher v. University of Texas, 570 U.S., (Ginsburg, J., dissenting slip op., at 3–4).
  33. ↑ Voeller, Amanda (November 14, 2013). "Fifth Circuit hears oral arguments for Fisher v. UT case". The Daily Texan.
  34. ↑ 09-50822 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, (2014).
  35. ↑ 09-50822 ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, (2014).
  36. ↑ "Fisher II" reaches the Court. Scotusblog.com February 11th.
  37. ↑ Sherman, Mark (June 29, 2015). "Supreme Court Will Re-Hear Texas Affirmative Action". ABC News. AP.
  38. ↑ Denniston, Lyle (December 9, 2015). "Argument analysis: Now, three options on college affirmative action". SCOTUS Blog.
  39. ↑ Mencimer, Stephanie (December 9, 2015). "Justice Scalia Suggests Blacks Belong at "Slower" Colleges". Mother Jones.
  40. ↑ Hennessy-Fiske, Molly (December 12, 2015). "For black students at Texas, Supreme Court remarks are a burden added". Los Angeles Times.
  41. ↑ Bernstein, Roberta (December 13, 2015). "U. of Texas Supreme Court fight gets hashtag: #StayMadAbby". USA Today College.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.