Civil and Human Rights

Fisher Goes Back to Court in Texas

Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit will once again be hearing Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, the challenge to the modest use of race in college admissions that made national headlines when it was considered by the U.S. Supreme Court last Term.

In a 7-1 decision this past June, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the Fifth Circuit, holding that the lower court had applied the wrong standard in judging the constitutionality of the University’s policy.  The Court did not reach the merits of whether the policy itself was unconstitutional, and left in place precedent that upholds the pursuit of diversity as a goal in general.   Indeed, after nearly a year of suspense and speculation about what the Court’s ultimate ruling might mean for educational institutions, the Court’s decision was mostly notable for what it did not do, as CAC’s David Gans discussed at the time.

Today, on remand from the Supreme Court, a three-judge panel  of the Fifth Circuit in Austin will reconsider the validity of the University’s policy, and may send the case back to the district court for additional fact finding about UT Austin’s admissions program. 

The NAACP Legal Defense Fund will be participating in today’s oral argument.  More information from our colleagues is at LDF’s website.

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
April 25, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.