. . Pp. 11–345.

But these arguments too were unavailing. And there was and there still is an intention by the Congress to see that these children shall be educated in a healthful atmosphere, in a wholesome atmosphere, in a place where they are wanted, in a place where they will not be looked upon with hostility, in a place where there will be a receptive atmosphere for learning for both races without the hostility that undoubtedly Congress thought might creep into these situations”). Because of the persistence of this segregation, admitting the top 10 percent of all high schools would provide a diverse population and ensure that a large, well qualified pool of minority students was admitted to Texas universities.”).

See, e.g., Brief for Respondents in Sweatt 96 (“[A] very large group of Northern Negroes [comes] South to attend separate colleges, suggesting that the Negro does not secure as well-rounded a college life at a mixed college, and that the separate college offers him positive advantages; that there is a more normal social life for the Negro in a separate college; that there is a greater opportunity for full participation and for the development of leadership; that the Negro is inwardly more ‘secure’ at a college of his own people”); Brief for Appellees in Davis 25–26 (“The Negro child gets an opportunity to participate in segregated schools that I have never seen accorded to him in non-segregated schools. Because the Court of Appeals did not apply the correct standard of strict  scrutiny, its decision affirming the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to the University was incorrect. Description: photocopied documents. Students assist in representing clients who are seeking review of lower court decisions or who have cases before the Supreme Court following grants of certiorari. The first Justice to be appointed who had attended an actual law school was Levi Woodbury, appointed to the Court … . While these are the cases that most specifically address the central issue in this case, additional guidance may be found in the Court’s broader equal protection jurisprudence which applies in this context. (b) Under Grutter, strict scrutiny must be applied to any admissions program using racial categories or classifications. It is for this reason that the Court has repeatedly held that strict scrutiny applies to all racial classifications, regardless of whether the government has benevolent motives. University officials were not pleased with the opinion. “ ‘[B]enign’ carries with it no independent meaning, but reflects only acceptance of the current generation’s conclusion that a politically acceptable burden, imposed on particular citizens on the basis of race, is reasonable.” See Metro Broadcasting, 497 U. S., at 610 (O’Connor, J., dissenting). . . On February 5, 1997, Morales issued his formal opinion in response to Hobby's request. 44, pp. 19-67 (merits-stage amicus brief supporting respondent filed January 20, 2020), Ekhlassi v. National Lloyds Ins. In that case, a collective-bargaining agreement between a school board and a teacher’s union favored teachers who were “ ‘Black, American Indian, Oriental, or  of Spanish descendancy.’ ” Id., at 270–271, and n. 2 (plurality opinion).

In order for judicial review to be meaningful, a university must make a showing that its plan is narrowly tailored to achieve the only interest that this Court has approved in this context: the benefits of a student body diversity that “encompasses a . Id., at 433. in Davis v. School Bd.

There can be no doubt that the University’s discrimination injures white and Asian applicants who are denied admission because of their race. 1996),[1] was the first successful legal challenge to a university's affirmative action policy in student admissions since Regents of the University of California v. Syllabus. In Grutter, the Court approved the plan at issue upon concluding that it was not a quota, was sufficiently flexible, was limited in time, and followed “serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives.” 539 U. S., at 339. For the next several years, the case was a popular topic of discussion and debate in The Daily Texan, the University's student newspaper. Originally, Hopwood's co-plaintiff was Stephanie C. Haynes, but Haynes was dismissed from the suit on February 11, 1993. It refers to this goal as a “critical mass.” Petitioner, who is Caucasian, sued the University after her application was re-jected. The District Court and Court of Appeals confined the strict scrutiny inquiry in too narrow a way by deferring to the University’s good faith in its use of racial classifications and affirming the grant of summary judgment on that basis.

. Students work closely with faculty members on cases before the United States Supreme Court. Question Presented: Should “applicable” and “not inconsistent” in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act be interpreted according to their ordinary meanings, such that California’s Labor Code, which is both “relevant, suitable, and fit” and not “incompatible” with the Fair Labor Standards Act, applies to employee compensation for drilling activities on the Outer Continental Shelf? The University of Texas at Austin (University) uses an undergraduate admissions system containing two components. Al- though cloaked in good intentions, the University’s racial tinkering harms the very people it claims to be helping. Warren E. Burger – Chief Justice; University or college trained. . In the controversial case of _____, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided that the University of Texas Law School could no longer give preference to African American or Mexican American applicants. 94–95 (hereinafter Brief for Respondents in Sweatt) (“[I]f the power to separate the students were terminated, . . The Court of Appeals thus concluded that “the narrow-tailoring inquiry—like the compelling-interest inquiry—is undertaken with a degree of deference to the Universit[y].” Id., at 232. in Brown v. Board of Education, O. T. 1952, No. See ante, at 10 (acknowledging that, in determining whether a race-conscious admissions policy satisfies Grutter’s narrow-tailoring requirement, “a court can take account of a university’s experience and expertise in adopting or rejecting certain admissions processes”).