The Court heard argument in two cases yesterday. In Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, the Court considered a challenge to the university’s consideration of race as part of its undergraduate admissions program. Kali rounded up much of the early coverage of the argument last night; further coverage comes from Greg Stohr of Bloomberg News, Emily Bazelon of Slate, Josh Gerstein of Politico, Mike Sacks of the Huffington Post, Jeffrey Rosen of The New Republic, Richard Wolf and Mary Beth Marklein of USA Today, Terry Baynes of Reuters, Todd J. Gilman of the Dallas Morning News, and Mike Tolson of the Houston Chronicle. [Disclosure: The law firm of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, filed an amicus brief in support of the university in this case.]
Commentary on the oral argument comes from Michael Ramsey of The Originalism Blog, David Bernstein and Ilya Somin of the Volokh Conspiracy, Ruthann Robson of Constitutional Law Prof Blog, and Paul Horwitz of PrawfsBlawg. Further thoughts on the issues raised by the case come from the editorial board of The New York Times, Sherrilyn Ifill at Concurring Opinions, Ilya Somin at the Volokh Conspiracy, Courtney Bowie of the ACLU’s Blog of Rights, Jeremy Leaming of ACSblog, and Joey Fishkin at Balkinization.
The Court also heard argument yesterday in Moncrieffe v. Holder, in which it considered the legal standard for deporting a non-citizen who has been convicted of possessing a small amount of marijuana without any evidence that he sold it. Lyle Denniston has a summary of the oral argument for this blog. Ted Hesson of ABC News has further coverage, while crImmigration hosts an online symposium on the case. [Disclosure: The law firm of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, represented the petitioner in this case.]
Briefly:
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY