I am very happy to attend a wonderful seminar on SMU legal review Students’ fairness enrollment to North Carolina University. The magazine strives to seek diverse perspectives. This is one of the more balanced seminar questions I’ve seen in years. well done. The following is the list of submissions:
This is the summary of my article, Students for Fair Admissions v. University Division, Exclusion, and Inequality: Petitions, Arguments, and Decisions:
Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard Law students will be passed down from generation to generation as Barc and bigger I studied before. but there is still much to do SFFA Final decisions from Harvard and the University of North Carolina will be announced. This article, published for the symposium by SMU Law Review, focuses on the three stages of litigation: petition, oral argument, and ruling. Part One tells the history of the complex process that began in the federal courts of Massachusetts and North Carolina. Harvard’s case reached the Supreme Court first, while UNC’s case lingered in district court. The Supreme Court sought the opinion of the Solicitor General. Through this, the court can postpone the case to the next period, so that the cases of the University of North Carolina can catch up and confirm that Judge Brey’s successor. Both cases will be argued on October 31, 2022.
The second part analyzes the issues raised by all nine judges in oral debates. Chief Justice Roberts stated in advance that he will make a disadvantage to a university. Judge Thomas reiterated his allegations that the argument that supported racial preferences reflected the argument of racial isolationists. Judge Arolo is worried that Asian American applicants will be discriminated against. Judge Sodomar focused on the detailed investigation results of the preliminary trial court. Judge Kagan questioned whether SFFA It will favor universities with few ethnic minorities or no ethnic minorities on campus. Judge Gosacian reference to Chapter 6 of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Judge Barrett asked about Groot’s expiration date. Judge Jackson tells how the racial preferences of the reconstruction Congress used the freedom.
Finally, the third part analyzes in detail the four aspects of the court’s decision. SFFA canceled the reason for the “education benefits” of equal rights. Chief Justice Roberts continued to take an inconsistent position on similar cases during the same term. Judge Cavano continued to follow the leadership of Chief Justice Roberts in the major cases including SFFA. I defended the facts of Judge Jackson’s may participate in Harvard cases, although she avoided it.
