Government
CBA
5/6/16
Fisher v. University of Texas-Austin
Fisher v. University of Texas, (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the affirmative action admittance policy of the University of Texas-Austin. The Supreme Court overruled the lower appellate court's ruling that favored the University and protracted 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. Thus showing that the University …show more content…
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 …show more content…
Fisher argues that although Grutter permits universities to seek a “critical mass” of minority students in the student body, it does not suggest that each classroom must have a similar critical mass. Instead, she claims that the proper base for measuring diversity is the student body as a whole. Fisher further argues that even if UT’s admission policy furthers a compelling state interest, the university has failed to show that the policy is necessary to create a diverse student body. She asserts that Texas’s Top Ten Percent Law has caused a dramatic increase in minority enrollment, so UT has established a “critical mass” of minority students without the use of racial classifications. Because the Top Ten Percent Law has proven to be a “workable race-neutral alternative,” Fisher claims that UT’s race-conscious admissions policy is not necessary to ensure
CBA
5/6/16
Fisher v. University of Texas-Austin
Fisher v. University of Texas, (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the affirmative action admittance policy of the University of Texas-Austin. The Supreme Court overruled the lower appellate court's ruling that favored the University and protracted 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. Thus showing that the University …show more content…
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 …show more content…
Fisher argues that although Grutter permits universities to seek a “critical mass” of minority students in the student body, it does not suggest that each classroom must have a similar critical mass. Instead, she claims that the proper base for measuring diversity is the student body as a whole. Fisher further argues that even if UT’s admission policy furthers a compelling state interest, the university has failed to show that the policy is necessary to create a diverse student body. She asserts that Texas’s Top Ten Percent Law has caused a dramatic increase in minority enrollment, so UT has established a “critical mass” of minority students without the use of racial classifications. Because the Top Ten Percent Law has proven to be a “workable race-neutral alternative,” Fisher claims that UT’s race-conscious admissions policy is not necessary to ensure