Thursday round-up
Briefly:
- At this blog, Lyle Denniston reports on the most recent developments in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, in which the Court last Term returned the challenge to that school’s use of affirmative action in its undergraduate admissions process to the lower courts for a closer look: the university has sought to have the case returned to a district court, where it then will seek a dismissal.
- Lyle also reports on the South Carolina Supreme Court’s decision to finalize the adoption of “Baby Veronica,” the child at the center of the adoption dispute in this past Term’s Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl.
- In her column for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse discusses comments made by Chief Justice John Roberts at last month’s Fourth Circuit judicial conference regarding the Court’s current make-up of eight former judges (Justice Elena Kagan being the exception), without any former political leaders. Greenhouse interprets the remarks as implying a “disconnect between what people seem to want from the Supreme Court – answers to the country’s most profound questions – and what the current crop of justices has been trained and selected for – namely delivering small-bore answers.”
- At The Daily Beast, Rick Hasen discusses strict new voting legislation under consideration in the North Carolina legislature in the wake of last Term’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder, in which the Court struck down the formula used to determine which jurisdictions are subject to the Voting Rights Act’s preclearance requirement. Hasen suggests that the proposed law, if enacted, may actually backfire on the North Carolina Republicans who are supporting it.
[Disclosure: The law firm of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, was among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the respondent in Fisher and in support of the respondents in Shelby County.]
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY