Podcast appearances and mentions of Fisher V University

Audio of Justice Ginsburg's dissenting opinion in the first Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin in 2013 known as Fisher I.   Access this SCOTUS opinion and other helpful case information at Oyez.org.      

The original Fisher v. University of Texas case from 2013 known as Fisher I.   Access this Supreme Court opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org.   Music by Epidemic Sound

Part 2 of the audio in Justice Alito's 2016 dissenting opinion in Fisher v. University of Texas. Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org.     Music by Epidemic Sound

Audio of Justice Alito's 2016 dissenting opinion in Fisher v. University of Texas. I read the majority opinion in this case in a November 7th episode. This episode includes the separate one-page opinion written by Justice Thomas at the beginning of this episode.   Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information on Oyez.org https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/14-981   Music by Epidemic Sound

Audio of the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Fisher v. University of Texas (2016).  The case I'll be reading today is similar to a 2003 case I read a couple of weeks ago, Grutter v. Bollinger. Both involved white females who had applied for admission to a particular university and were subsequently denied. In this case, Abigail Fisher applied for admission to the University of Texas but was denied. In keeping with the Court's ruling in Grutter, the University of Texas considered many factors in the admissions process, including race. Fisher sued the University arguing that the University's consideration of race in the admissions process violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court disagreed and so did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. When the case made its way before the Supreme Court, it held that the appellate court erred by not applying the strict scrutiny standard in its decision. The case was remanded, the appellate court reaffirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the admissions process indeed satisfied the strict scrutiny standard.   Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information here. Contact the Show. Music by Epidemic Sound.

On the third episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about the affirmative action case that flipped the Equal Protection Clause on its head.  

The rules of oral argument at the Supreme Court are strict: when a justice speaks, the advocate has to shut up.  But a law student noticed that the rules were getting broken again and again — by men.  He and his professor set out to chart an epidemic of interruptions.  If women can’t catch a break in the boardroom or the legislature (or at the MTV VMA’s), what’s it going to take to let them speak from the bench of the highest court in the land? The key voices: Tonja Jacobi, professor at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law Dylan Schweers, former student at Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law The key cases: 2016: Fisher v. University of Texas The key links: Justice Interrupted: The Effect of Gender, Ideology and Seniority at Supreme Court Oral Arguments   Special thanks to Franklin Chen and Deborah Tannen.> Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation. Supreme Court archival audio comes from Oyez®, a free law project in collaboration with the Legal Information Institute at Cornell.

Today's show is a deep dive into the current Constitutional status of affirmative action in higher education. We begin, however, with a question about Donald Trump from conservative listener Sage Scott.  Is it really a big deal to just listen to the Russians?  Couldn't you just pay them if their stuff turns out to be useful?  No.  The answer is no. In the main segment, the guys outline the current state of the law of affirmative action in higher education as set forth in Fisher v. University of Texas-Austin, 136 S.Ct. 1398 (2016) ("Fisher II"), and what that means in light of the Trump Administration's recent comments that it plans to focus DOJ resources on challenging college admission programs that (supposedly) disadvantage white people. Next, in a follow-up to the John Oliver defamation lawsuit we discussed in Episode 84, "Closed Arguments" returns with a dissection of the best legal brief ever written, an amicus curiae brief filed by Jamie Lynn Crofts of the ACLU of West Virginia in support of Oliver.  Andrew tries to contain his jealousy. Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Take the Bar Exam Question #35 regarding a physician's duty regarding releasing patients who are a danger to themselves or others.  And don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances Andrew had a busy week!  He was on the follow shows: Episode #17 of the  Squaring the Strange podcast Episode #14 of the Odd Atheist Friends podcast; and Episode #113 of the Utah Outcasts podcast. Show Notes & Links Here is a link to 52 U.S.C. § 30121, which you can read for yourself plainly prohibits virtually all contact between foreign nationals and any candidate for federal, state, or even local office. You can read the August 1, 2017 New York Times story on how the Trump Administration plans to challenge affirmative action in college admissions here. The most recent Supreme court case on affirmative action in higher education is Fisher v. University of Texas-Austin, 136 S.Ct. 1398 (2016) ("Fisher II"); Andrew also referenced Fisher I, 133 S.Ct. 2411 (2013). We first discussed Bob Murray's defamation lawsuit against John Oliver in Episode #84, and you can read the ACLU's outstanding amicus brief here. Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Key players in the U.S. Supreme Court case Fisher v. University of Texas (2016) discuss its implications for the future of affirmative action policies in the United States. The panel features Scott Ballenger '96, a key player working on behalf of the University of Texas for Latham & Watkins, and UVA Law professors Douglas Laycock, George Rutherglen and Kim Forde-Mazrui. (University of Virginia School of Law, March 15, 2017)

In 2014, the Students for Fair Admissions ("SFFA"), a membership organization comprised of students, parents, and concerned citizens, sued both Harvard University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for racial discrimination in the admissions process. SFFA alleged that the universities were capping the number of Asian Americans they admit and using racial classifications to engage in discrimination. After a brief stay pending resolution of Fisher v. University of Texas, both cases are now moving forward. This call will provide a litigation update on these and other cases. -- Featuring: Mr. William Consovoy, the lead attorney for SFFA, Partner, Consovoy McCarthy PLLC.

On June 23, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its second decision in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, which upheld the University of Texas’s race-conscious admissions program under federal law. The decision has already had an impact on policy development, considerations, and the efforts colleges and universities make to consider race in admission and enrollment. In this episode of Admissions Live we’ll speak with Terry Taylor, Education Counsel’s senior policy and legal advisor, about key takeaways from the recent decision and discuss guiding principles that will help your campus leaders craft responses to the decision and create strategies for race-conscious admission moving forward.

This week's episode covers Fisher v. University of Texas, which held that UOT's affirmative action program was in compliance with the Constitution and the Equal Protection clause.  Brett and Nazim vet out how and why this program was able to pass the seemingly high barrier of strict scrutiny and what that says for future programs implementing similar procedures.  Law starts (08:21), following this episode's rendition of "This Week in Ravioli Talk".

The recent Supreme Court decision in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, et al., was a cautious but significant one in favor of affirmative action. As Adam Liptak writes in his New York Times article ‘Supreme Court Upholds Affirmative Action Program at University of Texas‘, while ‘not all affirmative action programs will pass constitutional muster… the ruling’s basic message was that admissions officials may continue to consider race as one factor among many in ensuring a diverse student body.’ This opposes the central tenet of affirmative action opposition: admission to universities can only be based on merit, which in turn is determined mainly by grades buttressed by the quality of relative achievements; therefore, only color-blind admissions criteria are just and fair. But as we all well know, educational institutions have been generally the purview of the wealthy, the connected, and the white for most of our history....

With the Supreme Court ruling on Fisher v. University of Texas being handed down on Thursday, June 23, 2016, We consider both sides of the issue of race-conscious university admissions. We listen back to our debate from December 2015: The Equal Protection Clause Forbids Racial Preferences in State University Admissions.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Affirmative action seems to go before the U.S. Supreme Court regularly. Gail Heriot discusses why this matters to the Fisher v. University of Texas case before the court. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

On December 9, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. This is the second time the case has come before the high court. -- Abigail Fisher, a white female, applied for admission to the University of Texas but was denied. Fisher sued the University and argued that the use of race as a consideration in the admissions process violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court held that the University’s admissions process was constitutional, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The case went to the Supreme Court (Fisher I), which held that the appellate court erred in how it applied the strict scrutiny standard, improperly deferring to the University’s good faith in its use of racial classifications. On remand the Fifth Circuit again ruled in favor of the University, deeming its use of race in the admissions process narrowly tailored to a legitimate interest in achieving “the rich diversity that contributes to its academic mission.” -- The question in this case is whether the Fifth Circuit’s re-endorsement of the University of Texas at Austin’s use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions decisions can be sustained under this Court’s decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including Fisher I. -- To discuss the case, we have Joshua P. Thompson who is Principal Attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation.

Classnotes Podcast  (December 17, 2015) The U.S. Supreme Court has twice heard arguments in the Fisher v. University of Texas ... read more The post How the Fisher Case Relates to Equity in Public Schooling – Podcast Episode 159 appeared first on IDRA.

We'll give a breakdown of the Fisher v. University of Texas case and what implications this could have on college admissions.

On this episode, we review the oral arguments this week in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, which asks:Whether the Fifth Circuit’s re-endorsement of the University of Texas at Austin’s use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions decisions can be sustained under this Court’s decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 133 S. Ct. 2411 (2013).

Fisher v. University of Tex. at Austin | 12/09/15 | Docket #: 14-981

This week's case is Fisher v. University of Texas, where a rejected applicant seeks to declare the school's affirmative action program a violation of the Constitution and Equal Protection.  In addition to the Supreme Court precedent that brought us here, Brett and Nazim also discuss their own experiences applying for law school and how they ended up at the same place at the same time.

The Supreme Court has had a long history of dealing with race relations in the USA, but has the Roberts' Court seen a change in attitude since Alito's appointment? In this episode I look at three recent cases on the Court and look for clues to the future. With Fisher v. University of Texas, Austin back at the Supreme Court, could this be the end of affirmative action programs?

On this episode, we review the the Court's grant of review for the second time to Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, which asks whether the Fifth Circuit’s re-endorsement of the University of Texas at Austin’s use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions decisions can be sustained under this Court’s decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including the Court's 2013 decision in the Fisher case.

Diversity is the word of the day after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Fisher v. University of Texas. On this episode of Know-It-All, we'll take a look at diversity and multiculturalism in education through a different lens - gifted education. What is gifted education and, for purposes of equity, what should it be? My guest, Dr. Donna Y. Ford, is the author of several books, including Multicultural Gifted Education and the recently-released Recruiting & Retaining Culturally Different Students in Gifted Education. She'll talk to us about seeking and maintaining diversity for K-12 students in gifted and advanced courses. Host Allison R. Brown is a civil rights attorney and President of Allison Brown Consulting (ABC), which creates educational equity plans for schools and helps non-profit organizations to promote equity in education.

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin | 10/10/12 | Docket #: 11-345

A case in which the Court held that the use of race in college admissions is constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment only if applied with "strict judicial scrutiny."

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

As a follow-up to Harvard Prof. Randall Kennedy's talk on "The Supreme Court and Affirmative Action," the McFarland Center sponsors a fishbowl-style discussion to consider how the ruling in Fisher v. University of Texas could change life at Holy Cross, and what competing notions of justice affect how we think about the case.

Harvard Law Professor Randall Kennedy highlights key decisions in race-based affirmative action in higher education over the past 34 years and previews the upcoming Supreme Court case Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. Many observers believe the Court's ruling could effectively end the use of affirmative action in college admissions programs nationwide. Kennedy, who studies the intersection of racial conflict and legal institutions in American life, is completing a book on affirmative action.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear "Fisher v. University of Texas." This case could bring about the end of college admissions policies based on race. Lawyer2Lawyer co-hosts and attorneys, J. Craig Williams and Bob Ambrogi, along with Huffington Post Supreme Court Correspondent Mike Sacks and UCLA School of Law Professor Richard Sander, examine the possible fate of affirmative action in college admissions.