Procedural history. Barbara Grutter (Plaintiff), a white resident from the state of Michigan, was denied admission to the University of Michigan Law School (Defendant). She sued the Law School in a federal district court, and alleged racial discrimination against her in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment on the basis of the Defendant’s consideration of race as a key factor in the school’s admissions process. The district court upheld the Plaintiff’s claim. The court of appeals reversed.
Facts. The Law School from the University of Michigan intended to achieve diversity in their student body by evaluating each applicant based on an application that includes: GPA scores, LSAT scores, letters of recommendation, student’s personal essay, among
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
The fourteenth amendment states in the equal protection clause that states may not discriminate against any citizen for any reason, and must allow the same privileges, rights, and conservation. Hogan was on a mission to gain relief as well as compensation for the damages caused. The case was argued on March 22, 1982. The argument from Joe Hogan was proposed by advocate, Wilbur Colom. The petitioner’s side was presented by Hunter M. Gholson, in representation for Mississippi University for Women.
In this case, the prosecution used peremptory challenge to dismiss all of the black jurors. Batson claimed that the prosecutions use of a peremptory challenge violated the constitutions Equal Protection Clause (Findlaw | Cases and Codes, n.d.). The request was denied because Batson failed to show a pattern to which all of the black jurors were dismissed. The court established a standard for this case that a petitioner had to prove racial exclusion for discriminatory
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, No.14-981. Transcript of Gregory G. Garre Esq’s oral argument on behalf of the Respondent. Pg.51, lines 10-13, & Pg.55, lines 7-9: Back in 2002, from a class of 8,000, there were only 272 black students enrolled; 90% of the time, it is typical for a normal size classroom of to have zero to one African American student. Id. General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. agrees that in the event of two applicants’ criteria are exact alike, their race factors does “not necessary” matter in the admission office’s decision making. “The increasingly fierce competition for the decreasing number of seats available for Texas students outside the top 10% rule results in minority students being under-represented, and
In 1950, in the Sweatt v. Painter and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents cases, the Court struck down segregation of African American students in law and graduate schools. The Justice Department, in its brief to the Court, said it believed Plessy was unconstitutional and should be overturned. NAACP Legal Defense Fund lawyers, led by Thurgood Marshall, began to devise a strategy that would force the Court to re-examine the constitutionality of the separate-but-equal doctrine (2015 The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights/The Leadership Conference Education Fund). Thomas Madison had every right to go that college, he met every schoo. 1978:
In 1997, a legislation was passed in Texas, requiring all high school seniors who ranked in the top 10% of their classes to be admitted to the school. Fast forwarding to 2008, both Plaintiffs Abigail Noel Fisher and Rachel Multer Michalewicz applied to the University of Texas at Austin, but where denied. They believed that they were denied due to the fact that they were white. 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.
Also in evaluating an applicant; which factors are appropriate to consider? Can race be considered as a factor in the admissions process? THE COURT HELD The Supreme Court declared that University of California, Davis Medical School’s special admissions program is
The famous Plessy vs. Ferguson case is a symbol of American intolerance and oppression because the “separate but equal” principle created a benchmark for racial segregation but American democracy and progress is illustrated in women’s desire for equal opportunity when Bradwell applied to be a lawyer in the case Bradwell vs
Because there are two cases involved, there are two different legal questions that we must answer. First, we were to answer whether The Asian Society’s and its members Equal Protection rights were abridged upon by them being denied the benefits of the other minorities that attend West Central Dixie State University. Secondly, we were to answer the question brought to the court by The Sons of the Confederacy: Is the policy of positive segregation implemented by the university unconstitutional based on the rights guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the Equal Protection clause. We agree with the lower Court’s ruling in the case of The Asian Society that the policy itself it not unconstitutional, but that it does violate the Fourteenth Amendment because the compelling interest of the university is not narrowly-tailored enough. It should include all minorities not just some for the policy of positive segregation to fulfill its purpose of multiculturalism and diversity.
With the help of Edward Blum, her case was taken to the nation’s highest court in 2013. In 2003, The University of Texas Austin, said that race would become a factor in admission forms. That same year, The University of Texas had the highest race of diverse student, mostly Black and Hispanic. So the question started to rise, “Was Fisher really rejected because of being
The Supreme Court made a mistake when they decided with the University of Texas; no college should take in race as a factor when selecting applications of students. In 2007, two female high school students applied to the University of Texas; one of the girls being Miss Abigail N. Fisher. Abigail was a caucasian, in the top 12% of her school at Stephen Austin High School, but she was denied by the University of Texas along with a friend of her’s. However,
Marina Vinnichenko Term Paper: Court Case Gong Lum v. Rice Gong Lum v. Rice (1927) stands out as the case within which the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly extended the pernicious doctrine of “separate but equal”. In this case the issue was whether the state of Mississippi was required to provide a Chinese citizen equal protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment when he was taxed to pay for public education but was forced to send his daughter to a school for children of color. Mаrtha Lum, the child of the plаintiff of the case, was a citizen of the United States аnd a child of immigrants from China. She enrolled in and аttended the local public consolidated high school at the age of 9, but was told midway through her first day that
Title: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Thesis: The Oliver Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka case not only allowed integration in schools but it influenced the constitution towards equal protection and catalyzed future desegregation. I. Introduction: a. Description: Oliver Brown argued that although schooling was provided, it wasn’t equal because it was violating the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution. b. Thesis: The Oliver Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka case not only allowed integration in schools but it influenced the constitution towards equal protection and catalyzed future desegregation. II.
Grutter V. Bollinger Research Paper 2 Abstract Barbara Grutter (plaintiff) which is a resident of Michigan who was denied admissions into the University of Michigan Law School. Lee Bollinger (defendant) was president of the University of Michigan. Grutter filed this suit because the University had discriminated against the basis of race. Supreme Court ruled that the use of affirmative action in school admissions is constitutional if it treats race as some factor.
Introduction The case of Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, and centers on the University of North Carolina's use of race in its admissions policies. The petitioner, Students for Fair Admissions, have brought claims alleging that the university's use of race discriminates against Asian American applicants in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and federal civil rights statutes, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The legal issues before the Supreme Court include whether the university's use of race in admissions decisions is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause, whether the university has a compelling interest