Supreme Court Case Analysis 1. Summarize the Fisher V. University of Texas, Aust
ID: 363200 • Letter: S
Question
Supreme Court Case Analysis 1. Summarize the Fisher V. University of Texas, Austin Supreme Court case regards to the Fourteenth amendment & equal protection Clause 2. Describe the parties involved And the key facts in the case 3. Explain the holdings of lower court 4. Identify the relevant laws and regulations 5. Discuss what the issue was before the court 6. Compare and contrast the competing opinions of justices 7. Share your opinions, where do you stand and which justice do you most align with and why Supreme Court Case Analysis 1. Summarize the Fisher V. University of Texas, Austin Supreme Court case regards to the Fourteenth amendment & equal protection Clause 2. Describe the parties involved And the key facts in the case 3. Explain the holdings of lower court 4. Identify the relevant laws and regulations 5. Discuss what the issue was before the court 6. Compare and contrast the competing opinions of justices 7. Share your opinions, where do you stand and which justice do you most align with and why 1. Summarize the Fisher V. University of Texas, Austin Supreme Court case regards to the Fourteenth amendment & equal protection Clause 2. Describe the parties involved And the key facts in the case 3. Explain the holdings of lower court 4. Identify the relevant laws and regulations 5. Discuss what the issue was before the court 6. Compare and contrast the competing opinions of justices 7. Share your opinions, where do you stand and which justice do you most align with and whyExplanation / Answer
Abigail Fisher, a white female, applied for admission to the University of Texas but was denied. She did not qualify for Texas' Top Ten Percent Plan, which guarantees admission to the top ten percent of every in-state graduating high school class. For the remaining spots, the university considers many factors, including race. 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, which held that the appellate court erred by not applying the strict scrutiny standard to the University’s admission policies. The case was remanded, and the appellate court reaffirmed the lower court’s decision by holding that the University of Texas’ use of race as a consideration in the admissions process was sufficiently narrowly tailored to the legitimate interest of promoting educational diversity and therefore satisfied strict scrutiny. Plaintiffs Abigail Noel Fisher and Rachel Multer Michalewicz applied to the University of Texas at Austin in 2008 and were denied admission. The two women, both white, filed suit, alleging that the University had discriminated against them on the basis of their race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws
The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws". A primary motivation for this clause was to validate the equality provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed that all people would have rights equal to those of all citizen.
It States "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".
Decision
Fisher II was decided by 4-3. The majority opinion was authored by Justice Kennedy and joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. The majority upheld the lower court.n conclusion, the majority reiterated that the University has an ongoing obligation to use available data "to assess whether changing demographics have undermined the need for a race-conscious policy; and to identify the effects, both positive and negative, of the affirmative-action measures it deems necessary."
In a lengthy dissent joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas, Justice Alito wrote that the university's stated interests in diversity were not specific and were "shifting, unpersuasive, and, at times, less than candid." Additionally, Alito reiterated the circuit court dissent's claim that the Circuit Court majority believed that automatically admitted minority students were "somehow more homogeneous, less dynamic, and more undesirably stereotypical than those admitted under holistic review."
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.