Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In September 2011, lawyers representing Fisher filed petition seeking review from the Supreme Court. [13] [17] On February 21, 2012, the court granted certiorari in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. The Supreme Court heard the oral argument in October 2012, and handed down its decision on June 24, 2013.
Fisher v. University of Texas, 570 U.S. 297 (2013), also known as Fisher I (to distinguish it from the 2016 case), [1] is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Texas at Austin.
Fisher v. University of Texas may refer to either of two United States Supreme Court cases: . Fisher v. University of Texas (alternatively called Fisher I), 570 U.S. 297 (2013), a case which ruled that strict scrutiny should be applied to determine the constitutionality of a race-sensitive admissions policy.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
The Supreme Court is set to hear two cases at the end of the month challenging race-based admissions policies at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.
The court's decision in the 2013 case of Fisher v. University of Texas made alterations to the standards by which courts must judge affirmative action programs, but continued to permit race to be taken into consideration in university admissions, while forbidding outright quotas. [112] [113] In 2023, the Court, in Students
In October 2012, he unsuccessfully represented the University of Texas at Austin in Fisher v. University of Texas, a high-profile constitutional challenge to its admissions policy in which the Supreme Court issued a 7–1 decision to vacate a lower court's decision which was in favour of the university. [17]
In 2012, Abigail Fisher, an undergraduate student at Louisiana State University, and Rachel Multer Michalewicz, a law student at Southern Methodist University, filed a lawsuit to challenge the University of Texas admissions policy, asserting it had a "race-conscious policy" that "violated their civil and constitutional rights". [159]