Fisher v U. Of Texas Decision Forum

[Typhoon24]

Seems like this was a landslide defeat. 7-1 for the petitioner. The fifth circuit is vacated and remanded.

Here's the opinion.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12 ... 5_l5gm.pdf

The good news for us URMs is that Grutter v Bollinger (2003) was not overruled, meaning race can still be used as a factor in admissions. It seems that the justices felt that fisher did not follow the same standards of strict scrutiny as Grutter did. If I got something wrong, pls correct me.

Please check out scotusblog.com for updates.

[jrd93]

Most. def.

I've been waiting 8 months for the decision and thank god!

[A. Nony Mouse]

It's not really a defeat for anyone but the lower courts - it expresses no opinion at all on the merits of the UT admissions program, only holds that the lower courts didn't properly hold the University to a strict scrutiny standard. No opinion is offered about whether the program actually meets strict scrutiny.

[AmoryB]

It's not really a defeat for anyone but the lower courts - it expresses no opinion at all on the merits of the UT admissions program, only holds that the lower courts didn't properly hold the University to a strict scrutiny standard. No opinion is offered about whether the program actually meets strict scrutiny.

This. The court essentially punted it. You could maybe see this as a very, very tiny step away from AA because the Court is ensuring that lower courts apply strict scrutiny in it's fullest form - i.e. compelling interest and narrowly tailored means & no quotas, not just deferring to the good faith decisions of the admissions programs - but this really isn't anything new. It doesn't add anything to the equation not already provided by Grutter, Gratz, and Parents Involved. Kennedy just put the ball on the tee and then stopped short.

[masked kavana]

Oops wrong forum..

Will take this to the lounge.

[twenty]

I don't see anything changing here except that the 5th Circuit is the new 9th Circuit.

[jrsbaseball5]

Most. def.

I've been waiting 8 months for the decision and thank god!

[anubis1911]

Well for someone applying this cycle, this appears to be an act of divine intervention!

[blurbz]

lol at "landslide defeat."

[Typhoon24]

lol at "landslide defeat." Did you even read it? Maybe even a headline about it?

Landslide defeat refers to the 7-1 ruling instead of the projected 5-3.

[mojangles]

Most. def.

I've been waiting 8 months for the decision and thank god!

[A-Modest-Proposal]

Yeah I would not call this a victory or defeat for either side. Nor would I go so far to claim anything was a "landslide" anything.

As far as AA is concerned, this is "technically" a set-back insofar as the old standard is no longer sufficient and universities may no longer enjoy the leeway they once did with their diversity programs. At the same time, we were all aware of the possible disaster that this could have resulted in.Grutter was not stricken down, so everyone on this forum definitely gave a collective sigh of relief.

If anything, the future just seems really uncertain. In the fall, SCOTUS is suppose to hear another AA case concerning the overturning of Proposition 2 in Michigan in Schuette v. Coalition. If I am not mistaken, I believe a lower court struck down Prop 2 - so how will the SCOTUS deal with this? Will they say strict scrutiny was not applied in this case? And with Fischer v. Texas, how long will it be before the appellate court re-evaluates the case, and will we be right back at square one with the SCOTUS once again having to deal with it?

Now more than ever, everything just seems more opaque and I would be hesitant for anyone on either side of the debate to claim "victory" or "defeat." This cycle of URMs may be lucky enough to still get the boost, but to whether or not it will be the same impact is uncertain. And who knows, this cycle could be the last to receive the significant boost that past URMs have received.

[laww]

I hope to see a day where we no longer need to factor in race as a factor (even if it is insignificant) to admissions.

[jackmf419]

Yeah I would not call this a victory or defeat for either side. Nor would I go so far to claim anything was a "landslide" anything.

As far as AA is concerned, this is "technically" a set-back insofar as the old standard is no longer sufficient and universities may no longer enjoy the leeway they once did with their diversity programs. At the same time, we were all aware of the possible disaster that this could have resulted in.Grutter was not stricken down, so everyone on this forum definitely gave a collective sigh of relief.

If anything, the future just seems really uncertain. In the fall, SCOTUS is suppose to hear another AA case concerning the overturning of Proposition 2 in Michigan in Schuette v. Coalition. If I am not mistaken, I believe a lower court struck down Prop 2 - so how will the SCOTUS deal with this? Will they say strict scrutiny was not applied in this case? And with Fischer v. Texas, how long will it be before the appellate court re-evaluates the case, and will we be right back at square one with the SCOTUS once again having to deal with it?

Now more than ever, everything just seems more opaque and I would be hesitant for anyone on either side of the debate to claim "victory" or "defeat." This cycle of URMs may be lucky enough to still get the boost, but to whether or not it will be the same impact is uncertain. And who knows, this cycle could be the last to receive the significant boost that past URMs have received.

I believe you missed the point completely here. this ruling should in-fact change nothing. the judge wrote that in all matters which race is used judiciary oversight is required- and that a strict level of scrutiny should be applied to all such cases to ensure that they are meeting the narrowly defined governmental interest trying to be furthered- in this case diversity among the student body. The judge ruled that the lower court took the U of T at their word that their admission program was doing this- and didn't apply strict scrutiny. this case was not in anyway punted down the road- it was resent back to the lower courts with the instructions that they must apply strict scrutiny- this has been the case all along- this ruling in fact changes nothing for URM either this cycle or any following cycles- now if the lower court upon applying strict scrutiny finds that the admission program goes beyond the narrowly defined objectives of inserting diversity into the student body- then there will be something here. but as it stands this case is one that has little if any significance.

[A-Modest-Proposal]

Yeah I would not call this a victory or defeat for either side. Nor would I go so far to claim anything was a "landslide" anything.

As far as AA is concerned, this is "technically" a set-back insofar as the old standard is no longer sufficient and universities may no longer enjoy the leeway they once did with their diversity programs. At the same time, we were all aware of the possible disaster that this could have resulted in.Grutter was not stricken down, so everyone on this forum definitely gave a collective sigh of relief.

If anything, the future just seems really uncertain. In the fall, SCOTUS is suppose to hear another AA case concerning the overturning of Proposition 2 in Michigan in Schuette v. Coalition. If I am not mistaken, I believe a lower court struck down Prop 2 - so how will the SCOTUS deal with this? Will they say strict scrutiny was not applied in this case? And with Fischer v. Texas, how long will it be before the appellate court re-evaluates the case, and will we be right back at square one with the SCOTUS once again having to deal with it?

Now more than ever, everything just seems more opaque and I would be hesitant for anyone on either side of the debate to claim "victory" or "defeat." This cycle of URMs may be lucky enough to still get the boost, but to whether or not it will be the same impact is uncertain. And who knows, this cycle could be the last to receive the significant boost that past URMs have received.

I believe you missed the point completely here. this ruling should in-fact change nothing. the judge wrote that in all matters which race is used judiciary oversight is required- and that a strict level of scrutiny should be applied to all such cases to ensure that they are meeting the narrowly defined governmental interest trying to be furthered- in this case diversity among the student body. The judge ruled that the lower court took the U of T at their word that their admission program was doing this- and didn't apply strict scrutiny. this case was not in anyway punted down the road- it was resent back to the lower courts with the instructions that they must apply strict scrutiny- this has been the case all along- this ruling in fact changes nothing for URM either this cycle or any following cycles- now if the lower court upon applying strict scrutiny finds that the admission program goes beyond the narrowly defined objectives of inserting diversity into the student body- then there will be something here. but as it stands this case is one that has little if any significance.

You do realize when you say "it was resent back to the lower courts with the instructions that they must apply strict scrutiny" that essentially means "punted" right? So I didn't miss the point, but I believe you missed mine. My point was nothing at this point is clear. If the SCOTUS had made a ruling, and I mean a definitive "thumbs up, thumbs down" ruling, the future of AA would be more certain and all current and future applicants could be more strategic about their college plans. I get that them sending it to the lower courts for re-evaluation changes nothing, and I get that that works to THIS cycle's advantage - but that was not the concern I was raising.

There will be many more cycles after the 2013-2014 one, and where my concern lie is with their ability to access AA in both undergrad and law school. We do not know for certain what strict scrutiny in the case of AA will look like. In the past it was all done in good-faith, which is definitely a much lower bar to hop. Moreover, in the event that the appellate courts uphold AA, will the SCOTUS hear it again? As I said, it's very unclear.

Nobody can say for certain what the future of AA will be. But to claim that the punt by the SCOTUS was a victory, seems very nearsighted imo.