User talk:Civillawclass61892/sandbox

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 ofpublic 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 civil rights groups who feared that the Court would end affirmative action thus,reducing the number of black and Latino students at selective colleges and graduate schools. [2]'''

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 Dineden 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.[31]

Fisher's attorneys argued that race was not necessary in admissions decisions because a "critical mass" of minority students was already achieved through neutral incentives.”[32]

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.”[32] In his dissenting opinion, Judge Garza asserted that the Court erred by not demanding that the University clearly define what it meant in seeking a "critical mass" of minority students[32]. Fisher sought a rehearing en banc with the Fifth Circuit which was denied on 12 of November in a 10-5 decision.[33] Fisher then filed a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court.[34]y

.

On June 29, 2015, the Supreme Court announced that they would hear another challenge to UT Austin's admissions policy. The case has been assigned docket number 14-981 and will be heard on December 9.[35]e

'''Ms.Fishers attorneys will again focus,as they previously did the last time the Court took the case, on the question of whether the University has complied with the guidance provided in its past decision.[1]

'''On September 10, 2015 and Amicus Curiae Brief was filed by two members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in support of Abigail Fisher. The two commissioners filed as private citizens and introduced research in the brief that indicates race-preferential admission policies may actually harm the admitted students in that these students typically achieve lower grades as compared to grades they would have received from schools who would have admitted them based upon their credentials and not race.[2]

 On November 4, 2015 an opposing view friend-of-the-court brief was filed by California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris in which she urged the Court to reaffirm Grutter and allow public universities to consider race as one factor in its admission decisions. The brief argues that public universities, "to increase the number of underrepresented students of color", be able to consider race to ensure that students are a representation of a broad range of backgrounds and experiences and that this diversity would eventually produce benefits that would extend to our society[3]. Attorney General Harris also filed a friends-of-the-court brief in the first trail in 2012.''' '''

schmidt, peter. "what to expect as supreme court revisits race in admissions". Jump up ^ "members of the u s commission on civil rights file amicus brief in fisher v texas". Retrieved 2015-12-05. Jump up ^ [www.http://oag.ca.gov/news "attorney general kamala d harris files brief in u s supreme court affirmative action case, fisher v texas"].Bold text

additions of oral arguements
On December 9,2015, for the second time since 2013, the court again heard arguments in the case that could have far reaching consequences for affirmative action at colleges and universities around the nation. just as in the first case, Justice Anthony Kennedy holds the crucial vote as a divided court considers whether race may be used as one criteria for admission.

Based upon the questioning, it is difficult to forecast which way the court is leaning. The court's conservatives Justices were skeptical of the University's plan. Justice Clarence Thomas did not ask any questions, but Justice Scalia was blunt and direct when he questioned whether increasing the number of African American's at the University of Texas was in the black students best interests. "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 as well, as opposed to having them go to a less-advanced school, a slower-track school where they will do well."[4] His line of questioning was hostile to racial preferences and affirmative action as he noted a friend of the court brief in the case that said most black scientists do not come from the most highly selective schools. "They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they're being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them."[5] Chief Justice John Roberts continued on this line when he questioned the value of diversity in at least some academic setting. " What unique perspective does a minority student bring to a physics class".[6]

The Courts liberal justices, Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor were supportive of the University's program, all agreeing that the policy was a minimal use of race in support of creating a diverse student body that provides a richer learning environment or all.[7] Justice Elena Kagan,the other liberal justice on the court,once again recused herself from the case.

A decision is due in 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Civillawclass61892 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)