On October 10, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments for Fisher v. University of Texas. The petitioner, Abigail Fisher, a white student, challenged the university's consideration of race in the undergraduate admissions process. Fisher, who was denied admission to UT Austin in Fall 2008, argued that UT's use of race in admissions decisions violated her right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Show After the Fifth Circuit's Hopwood v. Texas decision in 1996, UT's race-conscious admissions ceased. In response, the Texas Legislature adopted the Top 10 Percent Law. Under this law, which affected admissions cycles beginning in 1997, seniors in the top 10 percent of their high school class are guaranteed admission to any Texas state university. The primary objective of the law is to draw in the best students from each Texas school, including students from predominantly black or hispanic areas, in order to achieve higher levels of diversity. Following the Supreme Court upholding a race-conscious admissions program at the University of Michigan Law School in Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003, UT then reinstated a consideration of race in admissions decisions for those who don't fall within the Top 10 Percent Law. The question presented was whether the Supreme Court's decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including Grutter, permitted UT's use of race in undergraduate admissions decisions. Fisher claimed that either this use of race did not fall into the constitutional parameters of Grutter or that Grutter must be overturned. Oral argument before the Supreme Court occurred on October 10, 2012. Justice Kagan recused herself from the case because of her participation as solicitor general when the case was before the court of appeals. The Supreme Court ruled on June 24, 2013, by a vote of 7 to 1, to vacate the Circuit Court's opinion and remand the case back to the 5th Circuit for review under the "strict scrutiny" standard. The 5th Circuit heard oral arguments on November 13, 2013, and ruled in favor of UT by a vote of 2 to 1 on July 15, 2014. On November 12, 2014, the 5th Circuit declined to rehear the case. Fisher petitioned to have the Supreme Court to review the case again, and that request was granted on June 29, 2015. Oral argument before the Supreme Court occurred on December 9, 2015. The Supreme Court ruled on June 23, 2016, by a vote of 4 to 3, to affirm the Circuit Court's opinion . See Fisher v. University of Texas, 631 F.3d 213 (5th Cir. 2011). See Fisher v. University of Texas, 133 S. Ct. 2411, 570 US __, 186 L. Ed. 2d 474 (2013). See Fisher v. University of Texas, 758 F.3d 633 (5th Cir. 2014). See Fisher v. University of Texas, 579 U. S. __ (2016).
The case concerns Abigail Fisher, a white Texas resident who filed this lawsuit after she was denied admission to the Univ. of Texas at Austin (hereafter referred to as UT). She argued that UT’s consideration of race as a factor in its admissions policy discriminated against her because of her race: under the policy, she contended, minority students with less impressive credentials had been admitted instead of her. The last time the Court issued a ruling on affirmative action, in 2003, the justices in a 5-4 decision upheld the Univ. of Michigan Law School’s limited use of race in its admissions policies to increase diversity (Grutter v. Bollinger). In that decision, the Court held that racial diversity in higher education qualified as a compelling governmental interest. (APA filed an amicus brief in that case consistent with APA policies contained in its Resolution on Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity and other APA policies on ethnic minority retention. APA’s brief put forth research findings in support of the Univ. of Michigan’s position.) Since 1998, most of the slots in the UT’s freshman class have been filled using a program that does not consider the applicant’s race: the Top Ten Percent Plan, which automatically admits any Texas resident who graduates from high school in the top ten percent of his/her class. For several years, university officials did not consider the applicant’s race to fill the remaining slots in the class; instead, they looked at factors such as academic performance, essays, leadership qualities, and work experience. After the Court’s 2003 decision in Grutter, the Regents of the University of Texas system modified the admissions policy, authorizing each school to decide whether to consider an applicant’s race. In 2004, UT modified its undergraduate admissions policy to include consideration of an applicant’s race. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit unanimously affirmed in 2011 that UT’s policy is within the teachings of Grutter. The Fifth Circuit agreed with UT, as did the trial judge in Austin, whose ruling observed that "as long as Grutter remains good law, UT’s current admissions program remains constitutional." But Grutter's longevity has been in doubt since its author, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, was succeeded by Justice Alito, who joined the court's four other conservatives in a 2007 ruling that forbade public-school districts from promoting diversity through race-conscious pupil-assignment plans ( Parents v. Seattle School District ) . APA filed an amicus brief in that case as well. The Obama administration filed a brief on UT’s side at the Fifth Circuit. The "university's effort to promote diversity is a paramount government objective," that brief said. Justice Elena Kagan, who was U.S. Solicitor General in 2010 when the Justice Department filed that brief, recused herself from the Fisher case, so the Fisher decision will be made by an eight-Justice Court. The Petitioner’s primary argument is that it is unconstitutional for UT to use race as a factor in its admissions program because the University’s pre-existing race-neutral approach (i.e., the Top Ten Percent Plan), is fully capable of meeting any educational interest in achieving a diverse student body. Many view Fisher as a vehicle through which the Court could cut back on if not eliminate the use of race in admissions decisions at public colleges and universities. While Fisher’s attorneys argue that UT’s discrimination goes beyond what was allowed in Grutter (in which the Court allowed limited use of such preferences), they also argue that if the Texas plan satisfies the U.S. Supreme Court’s analysis in the Grutter decision, then the Court should reconsider that ruling.
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin was a case ruled upon by the United States Supreme Court in 2013 and again in 2016 regarding the consideration of race in university admissions. In a 7-1 decision delivered on June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that affirmative action admissions policies must be held to a standard of "strict scrutiny" when reviewed in the courts. The court held that strict scrutiny standards place the burden of proof upon the university to demonstrate that its consideration of race is "narrowly tailored" and necessary to obtain campus diversity. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower court with instructions to more closely examine the admissions policies of the University of Texas at Austin (UT-Austin).[1][2][3] In July 2014, after the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld UT-Austin's admissions plan, Abigail Fisher—a white woman who argued that she was denied admission to the University of Texas at Austin because of her race, thus violating her Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection—petitioned the Supreme Court to review her case once again. SCOTUSblog's Lyle Denniston offered two potential reasons for the court's decision to rehear Fisher's case. He wrote, "One potential avenue for new guidance would be for the Court to refine the concept of 'critical mass' — that is, the point at which a college admissions plan produces enough minority students with special promise of succeeding in college to achieve the academic goal of racial diversity, broadly defined and not just a racial quota. ...The most intriguing prospect would be for the Court to make the decision turn on an issue that Fisher’s lawyers say entered the case late: whether a university can adopt an admissions plan that views applicants differently based on whether they went to racially segregated high schools with lower academic performance ratings."[4] In a 4-3 decision delivered on June 23, 2016, the court held that UT-Austin's race-conscious undergraduate admissions program did not violate the Equal Protection Clause; however, in his opinion for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy stipulated that "a college must continually reassess its need for race-conscious review. ... The Court’s affirmance of the University’s admissions policy today does not necessarily mean the University may rely on that same policy without refinement. It is the University’s ongoing obligation to engage in constant deliberation and continued reflection regarding its admissions policies."[5] Fisher IDue to a 1996 ruling from a lower court in Hopwood v. University of Texas Law School that the consideration of race in admissions was unconstitutional, the University of Texas system suspended its affirmative action program. In its place, the Texas Legislature passed a law authorizing a "Top 10 Percent" plan for admissions at the University of Texas. This plan automatically admitted all high school students graduating in the top 10 percent of their class to one of the campuses in the system.[6][7] After Hopwood was reversed in 2003 by Grutter v. Bollinger, the University of Texas at Austin revised its admissions policy. It used the Top 10 Percent plan to fill 75 percent of the open spots for its entering freshman classes, undertaking a traditional admissions process for the remaining 25 percent. Under this process, the university once again considered race in its admissions.[7] Abigail Fisher, a white woman who fell just short of being admitted to UT-Austin under the Top 10 Percent plan, was denied admission under the school's competitive admissions policy. Fisher sued, claiming that the university's consideration of race violated her rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The university held that its consideration of race was narrowly tailored according to judicial standards and that it was necessary for campus diversity.[1][2][8] The district court found in favor of the university, and the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit affirmed. Fisher further appealed to the United States Supreme Court.[2]
The court heard oral argument in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin on October 10, 2012. The Supreme Court did not strike down the university's consideration of race. Instead, it found faults in the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and vacated the lower court's opinion. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who wrote the opinion for the majority, explained that when admissions policies of affirmative action are under judicial review, they must be examined by a standard of "strict scrutiny" for the court to determine whether the policies are individualized or "narrowly tailored" and serve a compelling governmental interest. This standard places the burden of proof on universities to demonstrate that its policies meet these qualifications and that diversity cannot be achieved without them.[1][2][3]  University of Texas at Austin The court determined that the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit had not sufficiently held the policies of the University of Texas to a standard of strict scrutiny. According to the Supreme Court, the appellate court had taken the school at its word that its consideration of race met the required qualifications and had instead placed the burden on the plaintiff to rebut this. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower court with instructions to more closely examine the admissions policies of UT-Austin.[1][2][3] Justice Antonin Scalia concurred, but he wrote a separate opinion in which he stated that while the U.S. Constitution prohibits any discrimination on the basis of race, the precedent of allowing universities to consider race to achieve diversity was not at question. He agreed with the majority opinion in full.[2] Justice Clarence Thomas also concurred, but he further wrote that the consideration of race in admissions was not constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. He also wrote that the benefits of diversity are not necessary and do not constitute a compelling governmental interest.[2] Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, writing that the university properly considered race as one factor among many when making admissions decisions. She added that the Equal Protection Clause does not mean universities should be "blind to the history of overt discrimination."[2] Aftermath and legacyThe United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ultimately upheld the admissions policies of the UT-Austin.[9] The ruling of the Supreme Court was seen by many as a compromise between its liberal and conservative justices. However, the court’s opinion solidly placed the burden on universities to prove that their consideration of race in admissions is narrowly tailored and that racial diversity cannot be achieved by any other method when they use such policies. The opinion opened new doors for challenges to universities that consider race in their admissions.[9][10] Fischer IISee also: Major cases of the Supreme Court October 2015 term and SCOTUS to hear major affirmative action caseIn July 2014, after the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld UT-Austin's admissions plan, Abigail Fisher petitioned the Supreme Court to review her case once again. According to Lisa Soronen of the National Conference of State Legislatures, "Per Texas’s Top Ten Percent Plan, the top 10 percent of Texas high school graduates are automatically admitted to UT Austin, which fills about 80 percent of the class. Unless an applicant has an 'exceptionally high academic Index,' he or she will be evaluated through a holistic review where race is one of a number of factors."[11] Fisher argued that the appeals court did not apply "strict scrutiny" when evaluating UT-Austin's admissions policy. The brief for Fisher stated, "UT ultimately chose to dilute the demographic interest presented in its Proposal to a vague and undefined concept: that it seeks only to reduce, not eliminate, 'the degree of disparity' between its minority enrollment and state demographics. App. 197a. Such an undefined goal cannot be subjected to strict scrutiny. There is simply no way for a court to know what specific 'demographic' interest UT was pursuing, why a race-neutral alternative could not achieve that interest, and when that 'demographic' goal would be satisfied. UT’s equivocation undermines any claim that an asserted interest in demographic parity is 'both constitutionally permissible and substantial.'"[12]
The court heard oral argument in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin on December 9, 2015. In a 4-3 decision delivered on June 23, 2016, the court held that the university’s race-conscious undergraduate admissions program did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. However, in his opinion for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy stipulated that "a college must continually reassess its need for race-conscious review. ... The Court’s affirmance of the University’s admissions policy today does not necessarily mean the University may rely on that same policy without refinement. It is the University’s ongoing obligation to engage in constant deliberation and continued reflection regarding its admissions policies."[5] Justice Elena Kagan recused herself, so seven justices decided the case, preventing a 4-4 split decision.
|
What was the decision made in the Fisher cases of 2013 and 2022?
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 wiewird Inc.
