RSS

Grutter v. Bollinger

Why Affirmative Action Still Matters

Scott LemieuxAug 19, 2012

This fall, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Fisher v. UT Austin, a case that will determine the future of affirmative action in the United States.

The Court That Walks Off Cliffs

Garrett EppsFeb 24, 2012
(Flickr/peachygreen)

Affirmative Action: Perhaps the defining characteristic of the Rehnquist Court was a certain last-minute reticence. On issue after issue—the Commerce Power, abortion, even the long-standing conservative desire to do away with Miranda v. Arizona—the Court would walk up to the edge of the abyss, dangle its toes over the side, and then step (slightly) back. While moving the law far to the right, the Court seldom engaged in the kind of radical overruling that would have perhaps called its legitimacy into question.

The End of Affirmative Action in College

Scott LemieuxFeb 22, 2012
(Flickr/Kodamakitty)

As my colleague Jamelle Bouie noted yesterday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Fisher v. UT Austin, a challenge to the use of affirmative action for undergraduate admissions at the University of Texas. I wish I could make a case for more optimism, but I have to agree with the conventional wisdom that Grutter v.

Clarence Thomas' Selective Disdain For Policy Arguments.

Scott LemieuxDec 09, 2009

Yesterday saw the release of Sonia Sotomayor's first opinion for the Court, as Adam Liptak notes. Traditionally, justices are assigned a straightforward, unanimous case for their first opinion, and this was mostly true. Clarence Thomas, however, refused to join the parts of Sotomayor's opinion that considered the costs and benefits of a rule that would allow orders concerning attorney-client privilege to be appealed before a final ruling. "I would leave," Thomas said, "the value judgments the Court makes in its opinion to the rulemaking process."