Several New Filings
UPDATED x2 5:28 PM.
The Petitioner’s Reply Brief in the patent case KSR v. Teleflex, attached here, was filed late last week with the Court. All earlier briefs on both sides of the case are linked to in this earlier post. The case is set for argument on November 28. [Disclosure: Akin Gump represents the Respondent in this case.]
In another case, the Teachers vs. Union blog has made available the top-side filings in the consolidated “union fees” cases, Washington v. Washington Education Association and Davenport v. Washington Education Association. The merits briefs are here and the amicus briefs are here. The cases will be argued on January 10.
UPDATE x2: The Petitioner’s Reply Brief in one of the voluntary school integration cases, PICS v. Seattle School District, is now available here (thanks to Rick Nagel). The Reply Brief in the other case, Meredith v. Jefferson County, is now available here. The cases are set for argument on Monday, December 4. Previous briefs are available here.
I’m not sure I’d characterize PICS v. Seattle School District as being a “voluntary school integration case.”
In fact, the case is more about a school system choosing to segregate itself, rather than integrate itself. While using race, the Seattle Schools have expressed skepticism about integration the concept of a melting pot, both in word and in deed.
I have read the briefs for those parents, and it is clear that the parents seek integration, not segregation. The parents are arguing that students should NOT be assigned to schools based on their race, not that they should be segregated based on their race.
The Seattle schools are multiracial, and would be so even in the absence of race-based school assignments.
In fact, the Seattle Schools’ use of race actually PROMOTES segregation by barring certain minority groups — such as Hispanics and Native Americans — from certain schools where they are already scarce.
This is because the Seattle School District treats all minorities as being alike, so if there are, in its view, “too many” black students in a school, then the school system makes it more difficult for students from other minority groups, like Hispanics and Native Americans, to get into that school, in order to limit the overall numbers of minorities. The fact that this is so is shown in page seven of the Center for Individual Rights’ amicus brief in support of the parents.
Moreover, as the Competitive Enterprise Institute points out in its amicus brief, the Seattle Schools have denigrated the very idea of a “melting pot” as being outmoded and “unsuccessful,” have derided individualism as being racist, and have claimed that planning ahead (”future time orientation”) is for whites only.
The Seattle School District’s bizarre, inflammatory racial remarks have been reprinted and discussed at the Volokh Conspiracy, a widely-read law blog, and in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the Rocky Mountain News.
It is the Seattle School District and its race-based student assignment policies that are hostile to integration, not the parents challenging those racial preferences.
Comment by Hans Bader — November 20, 2006 @ 1:31 pm
Regarding KSR v. Teleflex: your readers should know that Tom Goldstein (counsel for Teleflex) will be speaking tomorrow morning (Tuesday, Nov. 22) at 9 a.m on a panel discussing the case, hosted by the Washington Legal Foundation at its offices in D.C. (2009 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.). The proceedings can also be viewed on a webcast on WLF’s website (www.wlf.org).
Comment by Richard Samp — November 20, 2006 @ 4:37 pm
Of course you wouldn’t characterize it that way, Hans! You submitted a brief in the case!
Comment by Jacques McKenzie — November 21, 2006 @ 2:08 pm