Oral Argument
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
American Public University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
602
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
4
Uploaded by CorporalFire11424
Running head: ORAL ARGUMENT
1
Oral Argument: Fisher v University of Texas
Quianna Bell
APUS-PADM611 I001 Fall 2023
November 19, 2023
ORAL ARGUMENT
2
Summarization of Arguments
The Case of Fisher v University of Texas proposed to see if the University of Texas violated the Equal Protection Clause found in the Fourteenth Amendment by denying Ms. Fisher admittance under the Texas Top Ten Plan, which utilized race as determining factor.
Attorneys Rein, Garre, and Verrilli, Jr. were all asked specific questions in which they showed significant distress in given direct answers to questions proposed by the Justices. They provided metrics and the meanings of them without a specific yes or no. Garre and Verilli, Jr. provided specific appendixes from rulings in prior cases to show distinction of how it applied to their focal
points.
None of the attorneys were allowed to speak without interruption at as different Justices were attempting to ask a question or interject what was being discussed at the time of speaking. Justice
Sotomajor was more aggressive during Attorney Rein’s arguments as the discussion of race and the use of race versus the non-neutral policies and Judge Alito was aggressive during the arguments by Attorney Garre on the amount of evidence that was missing and could have been utilized to support the University of Texas and their justification for utilizing and/or utilizing race
in the selection of the Top 10 Plan and the holistic process of selecting African American and Hispanic students.
Justices Roberts, Scalia, Sotomajor and Alito were more of the prominent speakers in which they
learned more towards the conservative side. Their questioning was more focused on the measured utilized for selection by race and ensuring the measures the University were heavily scrutinized to promote diversity instead of singling out African American and Hispanic students.
ORAL ARGUMENT
3
It was anticipated that the dissent would be in favor of The University of Texas as programs of this nature are used in most college institutions as a means of promoting selection, development, and growth in minority students. The consistent nature of the request for numbers and studies from the program over time, was a need to show different. A need to show that the University did
not scrutinize their program enough and it yielded negative results adding race as one of the determining factors. The numbers ended up signifying a pattern of growth as the numbers increased for the number of minority students over a significant amount of time.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
ORAL ARGUMENT
4
Reference
Fisher v. University of Texas. (n.d.).
Oyez
. Retrieved November 19, 2023, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/14-981