Does Anonymity Defeat Associational Standing?
The Second Circuit divides over whether an association must identify an injured member by name for the purposes of Article III. (Updated)
The Second Circuit divides over whether an association must identify an injured member by name for the purposes of Article III. (Updated)
Justice Alito wrote a strong dissent to denial of certiorari. The issues the case raises are likely to recur. In the meantime, the lower court ruling in the case sets a dangerous precedent.
She was the first woman Supreme Court justice, and played a key role in changing the Court's jurisprudence for the better on several issues.
[UPDATE: Added a brief discussion of pseudonymity and class actions.]
The author of The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America says colorblindness should remain our North Star during a live conversation with Nick Gillespie.
A Q&A with Coleman Hughes, author of The End of Race Politics: Arguments for a Colorblind America.
Preferential college admissions violated the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
In an attempt to make the student body more conservative, Christopher Rufo says the school is actively "rebalancing" the ratio of male and female students.
Cato Institute immigration policy expert Alex Nowrasteh explains the close parallels between a policy most conservatives hate, and one most them reflexively support.
Harvard law Prof. Mark Tushnet and political scientist Aaron Belkin urge President Biden to disobey "gravely mistaken" Supreme Court rulings. Doing so would set a dangerous precedent likely to be abused by the right, as well as the left.
A critical column by Jamelle Bouie prompts an extensive reply from Peter Canellos.
Some scholars and commentators argue that legacy preferences at public universities are unconstitutional because they are a form of hereditary privilege. If so, the same is likely true of the far more consequential hereditary privilege of citizenship that severely restricts the right to live and work in the United States.
If activists want to help young people, they should start before college.
Contra Joe Biden, they argue that these recent rulings show respect for individual rights and concern for racial and sexual minorities.
Topics covered include affirmative action, legacy preferences, the student loan forgiveness decision, refugee policy, indictments against Trump, Vladimir Putin, political ignorance, and more.
The article assesses strengths and weaknesses of the Court's decision, and what it will take to implement Chief Justice Roberts' admonition that "[e]liminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it."
Achieving this goal will require a lot more than banning racial preferences in college admissions. That includes some measures that will make the political right uncomfortable, as well as the left.
Join Reason on YouTube and Facebook Thursday at 1 p.m. Eastern for a live discussion of the Court's recent rulings on affirmative action and same-sex wedding services.
Plus: A listener question on the potential efficacy of congressional term limits.
A preliminary assessment of today's decisions. The majority rightly struck a blow against the use of racial preferences for purposes of advancing "diversity" in education. But there are some flaws in its reasoning.
There is no reason for public universities to grant preferential treatment to the scions of their alumni.
In a 6–3 decision, the Court ruled that race-based affirmative action in college admissions violates the 14th Amendment.
The Court's core ruling is unsurprising, but its future effects are uncertain.
Affirmative action becomes harder to defend when it entails discrimination against a variety of racial and ethnic minority groups.
Could the Court treat Justice Powell's Bakke opinion the way it treated Justice Kennedy's Rapanos opinion?
The decision sets a dangerous precedent licensing the use of facially neutral policies to discriminate against minorities in various contexts.
Why isn’t affirmative action in college admissions prohibited under the Civil Rights Act?
Plus: The editors field a listener question on college admissions and affirmative action.
The authors will join Reason on Thursday at 1 p.m. Eastern to discuss the Supreme Court cases alleging unlawful discrimination against Asian Americans by Harvard and the University of North Carolina.
The link between Bostock v. Clayton County and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina
The Supreme Court grapples with the original meaning of the 14th Amendment in Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina.
The conservative majority on the Court is highly likely to rule against the two schools' use of racial preferences in admissions. But there are several different ways it could do so, which have different implications for future cases.
In the two cases, brought against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, anti-affirmative action group Students for Fair Admissions argues that race-conscious admissions violate the Civil Rights Act
Pro-tip: If you are sued, and you expect your insurer to pick up the bill, it is a good idea to give them timely notice.
Understanding the jurisprudence of the conservative Supreme Court justice
The stay may signal that the federal appellate court will ultimately uphold the school's policy.
While some legal ethics experts suggest recusal would not be necessary, the SCOTUS nominee suggested she thinks otherwise.
The school board is fighting a federal judge’s ruling against a new admissions policy at Virginia's elite Thomas Jefferson High School.
Does her position on Harvard University's Board of Overseers require or counsel her recusal once she is confirmed?