Fisher V. University Of Texas Case Analysis

The role of the Judicial Branch of the United States has been the most dynamic throughout the Nation’s history. By adopting the power of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the Supreme Court established its position as being arguably the most powerful branch of Federal Government. However, this also made the Judiciary’s role the most controversial. Should the Court be required to interpret the constitution strictly through the language it contains? Does the Court have the right to overturn morals legislation? Through analyzing court cases like Lawrence v. Texas, one can gain insight on the role of the Supreme Court and how it fits within the confines of the United States Government.

I was impressed with the oral argument of Vance V. Ball State University case. When I first listened to the oral argument I gained a clear understanding as to why petitioner Vance reason where for filing a lawsuit. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforcement under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; make it unconstitutional for employers to discriminate against employees on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex (EEOC, n.d., para. 1). Due to the power that businesses needed to fire workers spontaneously, government and federal laws have been set up to guarantee that purposes behind end are defended and that separation does not assume a part in one's capacity to keep up their occupation (Szypszak,

There is one case that intrigues me, and confusing to me as well, Tompkins v. Alabama State University (AS) (1995). In the case of T v. AS, AS was told by a federal judge that the university needed to spend more state funds for scholarships to attract white students, the university was primarily black. The judge required the university to become more diversified. Jessie Tompkins along with others filed a lawsuit against the university and its white scholarship. In 2000 AS changed the name of the scholarship, making it racially inclusive. Tompkins denied the settlement because AS could still discriminate (Legislatures, June 2016). My confusion is, most want even opportunities for everyone, but AS had to change the program so it could no longer

Facts: This case consists of Hereford a criminal informant who gets information of narcotic laws to Officer Marsh; a federal narcotic agent with 29 years on the job. Hereford had been feeding Marsh information for close to 6 months and that information was accurate and reliable. In the early days of September 1956, Hereford told Officer Marsh that the defendant James Draper was distributing illegal narcotics throughout Denver. Several days later, Hereford told Marsh that in the days before Draper went to Chicago and set to return with several ounces of heroin. Along with the information given Hereford gave a physical description of Draper, which included his age, weight, race, and clothes that he had

Members of the University of Illinois’s men’s swim team filed a lawsuit in 1993 claiming that the school was discriminating against them by cutting their team and not the women’s swim team. The members claimed that this decision was in violation of Title IX, a law that prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender, along with the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The University of Illinois made the decision to cut the men’s swim team due to budgetary limitations. Along with the men’s swim team, the men’s diving, men’s fencing, and women’s diving team were also cut for the same reason. There were many instances previous to this case where female athletes have filed lawsuits claiming that they were being discriminated against, and that the institution was in violation of

Following the termination of the Colorado State University women’s varsity softball team on June 1, 1992; plaintiffs sought reinstatement on the basis of a Title IX violation ("Roberts v. Colorado State University, 814 F. Supp. 1507 (D. Colo. 1993) :: Justia," 1993). The girls found terminating their sports team to be unjust. The plaintiffs argued financial difficulties and lack of participation and support for the boy’s baseball team did not warrant termination of the softball program. They also argued getting recruited to play Division I level softball afforded them a better chance at improving their future. Most girls had a substantial amount of scholarship money that helped them afford college ("Roberts v. Colorado State University, 814

Texas v. Johnson took place in 1989. The historical significance of the Supreme Court’s decision is that the burning of an American flag is a protected form of speech under the First Amendment. The case originated after Johnson burned the United States flag during a protest. Johnson was arrested, sentenced to one year in prison, and fined $2,000. Johnson appealed his case to the appeals court in Texas but lost. Johnson’s case then went to the Court of Criminal Appeals in Texas which lead to the overturning of Johnson’s conviction.

In 2014, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposed a guidance policy called the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), which would grant temporary deportation protection to about 4.3 million undocumented immigrants. But in that year, twenty-six states challenged the DAPA guidance, therefore the Supreme Court will decide whether the states have standing to challenge DAPA if will increase the costs of state-subsidized benefits, for example drivers license , and if DAPA is lawful and constitutional under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Take Care Clause of the Constitution. This case is called United States v. Texas. The United States states that Texas lacks Article III standing to challenge

In the case of Johnson vs. Texas, Gregory Lee Johnson was brought to court for burning the American Flag outside of the convention center during the Republican National Convention. The incident occurred in Dallas Texas in the year 1984 when Ronald Reagan was President. The report stated that Johnson was protesting against Reagan’s policies in America. Johnson was proved to be a member of a private institution that promoted the communist movement. His protest against Reagan expressed his dissatisfaction. Johnson was arrested and charged for violating a Texas statue fined $2000 dollars for his actions. In response to the fine, Johnson appealed and took his case to the United States Supreme Court.

Whether Gregory Johnson burning of the American Flag is considered expressive speech thus allowing him to challenge his conviction under the First Amendment freedom of speech.

So García and four others came to the Supreme Court case hearing: Chris Alderete and James de Anda of the American G.I. Forum and John J. Herrera and Carlos Cadena from the League of United Latin American Citizens. The Supreme Court heard the Hernández V. The State of Texas case in 1954. There was two sides for this case, Hernández’ and The State of Texas. García fought for Hernández and argued that the 14th amendment not only protected the rights of races like white and black but also class. He said that those citizens in the jury selection process were being discrediting and excluding people based on class and that’s why there hasn’t been a Mexican-American citizen on a Texas jury in over 25 years. This affected all the minorities and lower classes especially Mexican-Americans and made it unfair to them in court cases. On the other hand The State of Texas said that the 14th amendment only protected the rights of whites and blacks and that Mexican-Americans fall under the white class. Furthermore, The State of Texas verified that no Mexican-American had served on the jury in over 25 years but proposed that it was just a coincidence and not because of discrimination. I believe The State of Texas was worried about having minorities and separate classes in juries because they might not make the same decisions that the average white man would make. Thus Texas was hesitant to promote the electing of any Mexican-American to a jury

Race-based affirmative action is practiced today by public universities throughout the nation. For example, in June of 2016 the United States Supreme Court ruled in Fisher v University of Texas that the University of Texas at Austin’s race-based affirmative action program was constitutional and, thus, the university would be able to continue said program. In addition, New York University indicates on their website that they, too, practice race-based affirmative action. However, while affirmative action is practiced at universities across the United States not everyone agrees with such policies. Many argue that such policies don’t adequately achieve their intended effect,

comes to Prop 209’s categories - ethnicity. Proposition 209’s case bans affirmative action here in

University of Texas, 2012). During the hearing of the case, Justice Scalia sided with Fisher stating, “African-Americans [do well at] less advanced school... a slower-track school” (Fisher v. University of Texas, 2012). Justice Scalia believed that students of color should attend colleges with non-rigorous curriculum to succeed and give non-minority students an opportunity to be admitted the schools of their choice. However, Carneveal, Strohl, and Werf’s studies claim that underrepresented minority students are “three times more likely” to succeed at a selective college or university (Werf, Strohl, Carnevale, 2016). The mismatch theory is dangerous because it relies on a handful of cases to determine whether students of color are intellectually competent to attend selective higher education institutions.

One of the stranger cases we have learned in class is the case of Stephens v. MTA . The link to the article can be found in Lecture 17 and at http://www.nytimes.com/1983/12/22/nyregion/man-who-tried-to-commit-suicide-wins-settlement.html. The article is tilted “Man Who Tried to Commit Suicide Wins Settlement” by Richard Severo and published on New York Times on December 22, 1983. Another link I used to find more information about this case is http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/ 0,9171,952305,00.html. This article is titled “Law Suicide Payon” written on January 9, 1984.