Civil and Human Rights

Previewing Fisher v. University of Texas

Details

Tuesday, October 9, 2012
4:00 pm
American Constitution Society

ACS invites you to learn about the upcoming arguments in Fisher v. University of Texas with three distinguished panelists. The case will be argued the following day and could have broad implications for affirmative action in public education. Issue: Whether the Supreme Court’s decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including Grutter v. Bollinger, permit the University of Texas at Austin’s use of race in undergraduate admissions decisions. Linda Greenhouse: Senior Research Scholar in Law, Knight Distinguished Journalist-in-Residence and Joseph Goldstein Lecturer in Law, Yale Law School; Pulitzer Prize-winning former U.S. Supreme Court Correspondent, New York Times; Member, ACS National Board of Directors Amy Wax: Robert Mundheim Professor of Law, Penn Law; Former Assistant to the Solictor General; Expert Social Welfare Law and Policy David Gans: Director of the Human Rights, Civil Rights, and Citizenship Program, Constitutional Accountability Center; Former Program Director of Cardozo Law School’s Floersheimer Center for Constitutional Democracy and attorney with the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
June 14, 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.