enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_Fair...

    Both Harvard and North Carolina were decided jointly on June 29, 2023, with the Court ruling that race-based admissions adopted by both Harvard University and UNC were unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

  3. UNC’s race-conscious admissions policy is unconstitutional ...

    www.aol.com/news/unc-race-conscious-admissions...

    The court’s ruling also applies to Harvard University’s race-conscious admissions policy, which had been the subject of a separate, but similar, lawsuit filed by SFFA on the same day in 2014 ...

  4. Read the Supreme Court decision in UNC and Harvard’s race ...

    www.aol.com/read-supreme-court-decision-unc...

    For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us

  5. How will college entry change after Supreme Court ruled UNC’s ...

    www.aol.com/news/college-entry-change-supreme...

    For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us

  6. List of landmark court decisions in the United States

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landmark_court...

    Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976) North Carolina's new death penalty statute is unconstitutional because it calls for a mandatory death sentence to be imposed. Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325 (1976) Louisiana's new death penalty statute is unconstitutional because it calls for a mandatory death sentence for a large range of ...

  7. Harvard president apologizes after backlash over remarks at ...

    www.aol.com/harvard-president-apologizes...

    Harvard President Claudine Gay is apologizing for her responses to questions about campus antisemitism during a House hearing Tuesday, which led some to call for her resignation Gay got into a ...

  8. Rucho v. Common Cause - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rucho_v._Common_Cause

    Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422, 588 U.S. 684 (2019) is a landmark case of the United States Supreme Court concerning partisan gerrymandering. [1] The Court ruled that while partisan gerrymandering may be "incompatible with democratic principles", the federal courts cannot review such allegations, as they present nonjusticiable political questions outside the jurisdiction of these courts.

  9. Harvard, UPenn and MIT presidents face backlash after hearing ...

    www.aol.com/news/harvard-upenn-mit-presidents...

    Here's what happened at the hearing and what's happening as the backlash continues to unfold. Harvard, UPenn and MIT presidents face backlash after hearing on antisemitism on campus. Here’s what ...