A guide to the amicus briefs in the affirmative-action cases https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/10/a-guide-to-the-amicus-briefs-in-the-affirmative-action-cases/ excerpt: Nearly 100 amicus briefs were filed in Students for Fair Admissions v. the University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, the cases questioning the use of affirmative action in undergraduate admissions at both public and private universities. Thirty-three briefs support SFFA and 60 briefs support the universities. We reviewed them all and summarized many of the noteworthy arguments. The cases will be argued on Monday. For background on the cases, check out Amy Howe’s preview for SCOTUSblog. more at the link
The best possible outcome would be that UNC's affirmative action system is deemed unconstitutional because it is a state violation of equal protection, but Harvard's be upheld because as a private actor the government has no power to control their admissions processes (and in doing so, overturn the Civil Rights Act of 1964).
Harvard receives beaucoup tax dollars though And isn't racial discrimination by private organizations also illegal?
So condition receiving the tax dollars on going along with gender neutral admissions. Yes, hence the bit about overturning the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the law that makes discrimination by private organizations illegal).
What is with you and wanting to overturn the civil rights act? Damn it’s annoying to read and it isn’t happening. Get the **** over it…
Why would that be more annoying to read than any other sentence. Those are not difficult words. As for my reasoning, because the federal government is not empowered to regulate private interactions between individuals (except for the abolition of slavery, due to the 13th Amendment). If someone wants to have an all black barbershop that only serves black men, it should be legal to do so. If someone wants to have an all Chinese restaurant that only serves Chinese people, it should be legal to do so. If someone wants to have an all female gymnasium that only serves women, that should be legal as well. The same for any other business or affinity group. Any law abridging this right is unconstitutional.
I respect you speaking your mind but you wanna go back in time and that’s just not on the table even with a majority of republicans on the Supreme Court.
important case being heard on Wednesday (CORRECTION: heard last Wed 11/9) Race Question in Supreme Court Adoption Case Unnerves Tribes The issue is whether a federal law that seeks to place Native American foster children in Native American homes is constitutional. The case could turn on whether the justices see tribes as racial groups or sovereign nations. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/07/health/native-american-adoption-icwa.html excerpt: The little girl who will soon be known by the nine justices of the United States Supreme Court as Y.R.J. is now 4 years old. For much of her short life she has been living with Dr. Jennifer Brackeen and Chad Brackeen, a suburban Texas couple fighting with the Navajo Nation to adopt her. Y.R.J.’s birth mother is Navajo. The Brackeens are white. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in their case, which could affect not only the little girl’s adoption but those of thousands of Native American children in foster care. Depending on how broadly the justices rule, the outcome of the case, Brackeen v. Haaland, could also start the unraveling of other federal protections that have long been extended to tribes. That is because the case, which primarily pits the Brackeens and Texas against the U.S. Department of the Interior and five tribes, could turn on whether the Supreme Court finds that tribes are racial classifications rather than political ones — a prospect that the tribes find deeply threatening. “It would put at risk every treaty, every property and political right and every power that Indian nations possess today,” said Robert Miller, a professor of federal Indian law at Arizona State University, tribal court judge and enrolled citizen of the Eastern Shawnee Tribe. “All of a sudden, lands would be owned by ‘a race of Indian people,’ not a tribal government,” he said. “Your borders, your police laws, everything on the reservation would be in question. I’m not being hyperbolic. I am afraid of this case.” Specifically, the Brackeens want the Supreme Court to overturn a federal law, the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. The law says that when a child who is eligible for tribal membership winds up in state foster care, the child should, whenever possible, be adopted by a tribal family. Lawyers for the Brackeens argue that the law discriminates against Native American children as well as non-Native families who want to adopt them because it determines placements based on race. But tribes say they are political entities, not racial groups. Legal scholars said that, beyond resolving the Solomonic fight over the fate of a child, a decision against the tribes could, in the long term, shake their centuries-old legal status as sovereign nations with a unique relationship to the U.S. government. For 250 years, that relationship has been the foundation of treaties and regulations for tribal health and education benefits; criminal jurisdiction; and hunting, fishing, oil, mineral and gaming rights. In the short term, if the Supreme Court determines that tribal citizenship is based on race, the child welfare law, often known as the I.C.W.A., will be struck down for violating the equal protection rights of Native children and non-Native adoptive families. more at the link
Interesting book on one big part of this topic, came out last year: https://cap-press.com/books/isbn/9781531018412/The-Cherokee-Supreme-Court
there have been a number of different cases, both at the state and federal level, some of which have been consolidated. I assume this is a consolidation of the various federal cases on edit: description of the cases. I missed the date on the NYT article, the arguments were heard last week: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haaland_v._Brackeen Haaland v. Brackeen is a pending Supreme Court of the United States case brought by the states of Texas, Louisiana, and Indiana, and individual plaintiffs, that seeks to declare the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) unconstitutional. In addition to Haaland v. Brackeen (docket no. 21-376), three additional cases have been consolidated to be heard at the same time. Those cases are Cherokee Nation v. Brackeen, Texas v. Haaland, and Brackeen v. Haaland. The matter originally came up in a Texas District Court on an adoption petition filed by Chad and Jennifer Brackeen. After their effort was challenged by the Navajo Tribe, the Brackeens brought suit in the U.S. District Court in Fort Worth. The Cherokee Nation, Oneida Nation, Quinault Indian Nation, and Morongo Band of Mission Indiansintervened in the case. The U.S. District Court declared that the ICWA was unconstitutional and the case was appealed. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court in a panel opinion. The full court, on rehearing the case en banc, held that parts of the law, that set federal standards for lower and state courts, were constitutional; but that the parts of the law that required state agencies to perform certain acts were unconstitutional as a violation of the Tenth Amendment. The Supreme Court heard the case on November 9, 2022, and a decision is expected in spring 2023.
thanks. I suppose the law could be found to be unconstitutional, but the status of Indian Nations as separate entities...I'm not sure how SCOTUS can abrogate a treaty...
They did it with Roe v. Wade, they did it with the Voting Rights Act, it looks like they are going to do it with Affirmative Action. They clearly are willing to overturn longstanding statutes and precedents and are not afraid of touching third rail issues. Now more than ever, it seems like overturning the CRA really could be on the table.
Supreme Court Takes Jack Daniels Trademark Case with Major Free Speech Implications https://jonathanturley.org/2022/11/...-dispute-with-major-free-speech-implications/ excerpt: more at the link
I want to see how unhinged you are with this question. Should racial discrimination be allowed for rent or purchasing of homes?
Or how about electric plans or cell phone plans. Imagine being a minority living in an area where the only options available are white only. As a side, literally no reputable constitutional scholar agrees with SM on the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act. The fact that we have a court willing to entertain overturning it shows both how far out of the mainstream they are and how poor their judicial talents are.
