TITLE

Affirmative Action and the Supreme Court

AUTHOR(S)
Root, Damon W.
PUB. DATE
April 2012
SOURCE
Hit & Run;4/292012, p109
SOURCE TYPE
Blog Entry
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
The article discusses the case, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, in which the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether the school breached the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment when it used race as a factor in considering undergraduate admissions.
ACCESSION #
75458322

 

Related Articles

  • Economic Liberty in the Courts. Thomas, George // National Affairs;Summer2010, Vol. 4, p45 

    The article looks at economic liberty in U.S. courts. It discusses the historical context of the 14th Amendment in order to understand it and its relationship to economic rights and liberties. It also says that the power of the U.S. Supreme Court to determine the meaning of crucial...

  • Supreme Court hears Michigan challenge to Affirmative Action. Curry, George E. // Michigan Citizen;10/27/2013, Vol. 35 Issue 51, pA5 

    The article reports that the oral arguments in the case Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court to determine if the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment was violated by the referendum of Michigan.

  • Oberfefell v Hodges: The US Supreme Court Decides the Marriage Question. Isaacson, Scott E. // Oxford Journal of Law & Religion;Oct2015, Vol. 4 Issue 3, p530 

    The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court case Obergefell et al v. Hodges et al which deals with the decsion on same sex marriage which applied the 14th Amendment of the Constitution on equal protection and due process.

  • The Promise and Perils of `Privileges or Immunities': Saenz v. Roe, 119 S. Ct. 1518 (1999).  // Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy;Fall99, Vol. 23 Issue 1, p295 

    Discusses issues on the utilization of the United States Supreme Court's 14th Amendments' Privileges of Immunities Clause in Colgate versus Harvey case in 1935. Facts and procedural history of the case; Analysis of the case; Details on the case.

  • Criminal Procedure, Jury Discrimination & the Pre-Davis Intent Doctrine: The Seeds of a Weak Equal Protection Clause. Starkey, Brando Simeo // American Journal of Criminal Law;Fall2010, Vol. 38 Issue 1, p1 

    The article discusses how the Intent Doctrine made known by the Washington v. Davis case circumvents the U.S. Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. With its seeds deposited after the Reconstruction Period, the Intent Doctrine allows hearing of a black defendant criminal case with an...

  • Originalism and Sex Discrimination. Calabresi, Steven G.; Rickert, Julia T. // Texas Law Review;Nov2011, Vol. 90 Issue 1, p1 

    The article focuses on originalism and sex discrimination in modern constitutional law. The author discusses how the male justices in the U.S. Supreme Court have proven that they do not consider the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to protect against sex discrimination. The author...

  • LET'S ALL AGREE TO DISAGREE, AND MOVE ON: ANALYZING SLAUGHTER-HOUSE AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT'S PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES CLAUSE UNDER "SUNK COST" PRINCIPLES. JENNINGS, EMILY // Boston College Law Review;2013, Vol. 54 Issue 4, p1803 

    The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has lain nearly dormant since the U.S. Supreme Court's 1872 decision in the Slaughter-House Cases. Although legal historians have fought to overturn Slaughter-House for decades to restore the Privileges or Immunities Clause to its...

  • GETTING BEYOND GUNS: CONTEXT FOR THE COMING DEBATE OVER PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES. Neily III, Clark M.; McNamara, Robert J. // Texas Review of Law & Politics;Fall2009, Vol. 14 Issue 1, p15 

    The article presents legal analysis on the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and its legal philosophy towards liberty, immunity, and privileges. It suggests that the Supreme Court needs to revisit and repair the damages that the five justices in Slaughter-House had...

  • The "Other" Side of Richardson v. Ramirez: A Textual Challenge to Felon Disenfranchisement. Hinchcliff, Abigail M. // Yale Law Journal;Oct2011, Vol. 121 Issue 1, p194 

    Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment allows states to disenfranchise citizens on account of "rebellion, or other crime" without reducing the size of the state's delegation in the House of Representatives. In its 1974 decision in Richardson v. Ramirez, the Supreme Court held that this language...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of THE LIBRARY OF VIRGINIA

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics