1. Brief of California Ass’n of Scholars, Fisher v. Texas II (merits stage)
2. Brief of Amici Curiae Gail Heriot and Peter Kirsanow, Fisher v. Texas II (merits stage)
3. Brief of Amici Curiae Gail Heriot and Peter Kirsanow, Fisher v. Texas II (certiorari stage)
Amici curiae argue in this brief that the Fifth Circuit failed to follow Fisher I on remand. If the Fifth Circuit had followed Fisher I, it would have noted that the University of Texas’s (UT’s) admissions policy is not motivated by a desire to capture the pedagogical benefits of diversity. If UT were genuinely concerned about pedagogy, it would be very interested in the growing body of evidence indicating that large racial preferences in admissions put racial and minority students at a disadvantage in the classroom, particularly in mathematics, natural sciences, and engineering. Instead, UT’s admissions policy appears motivated by a desire to indulge the tastes of legislators, donors, and students for what these groups superficially regard as social justice. Thus, UT’s policy cannot be said to be narrowly tailored to promote pedagogical goals.
4. Brief of Amici Curiae Gail Heriot and Peter Kirsanow, Cannon v. United States (certiorari stage)
Amici curiae argue in this brief that the Supreme Court should grant certiorari in Cannon v. United States, a challenge to the constitutionality of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd. Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (“HCPA.”) According to amici curiae, Section Two of the Thirteenth Amendment (which gives Congress the power to enact appropriate legislation enforcing Section One’s ban on slavery and involuntary servitude) does not give Congress the power to enact hate crimes legislation.
In this brief, amici curiae describe research summarized in two U.S. Commission on Civil Rights reports that shows that race preferences in admissions at colleges and law schools may be harming their intended beneficiaries. According to this research, preferences have the effect of placing many racial and ethnic minority students at institutions where their credentials are below those of the median student. Because of the academic mismatch resulting from the credential gap, minority students are less likely to graduate from college with science degrees or to pass the bar upon graduating from law school than they would be if these students enrolled in institutions where their credentials were closer to the median student’s. Amici curiae also explain why the academic literature on “stereotype threat” does not justify racial preferences in admissions
In this brief, amici curiae describe research summarized in two U.S. Commission on Civil Rights reports that shows that race preferences in admissions at colleges and law schools may be harming their intended beneficiaries. According to this research, preferences have the effect of placing many racial and ethnic minority students at institutions where their credentials are below those of the median student. Because of the academic mismatch resulting from the credential gap, minority students are less likely to graduate from college with science degrees or to pass the bar upon graduating from law school than they would be if these students enrolled in institutions where their credentials were closer to the median student’s.
Amici curiae argue that, to be narrowly tailored as required by the Constitution, a diversity program must take into account both the costs and benefits of race-preferential admissions. A race-preferential admissions program that is designed without regard to the harms caused by academic mismatch cannot be narrowly tailored.
Amici curiae argue in this brief that the Supreme Court should grant certiorari in Hatch v. United States, a challenge to the constitutionality of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd. Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act (“HCPA.”) According to amici curiae, Section Two of the Thirteenth Amendment (which gives Congress the power to enact appropriate legislation enforcing Section One’s ban on slavery and involuntary servitude) does not give Congress the power to enact hate crimes legislation.
Amici curiae argue in this brief that the Fifth Circuit should hold the HCPA unconstitutional because Section Two of the Thirteenth Amendment does not give Congress authority to enact this legislation
Amici curiae discuss the relevance of the Shelby County v. Holder Fifteenth Amendment Supreme Court decision to the Thirteenth Amendment issues in Cannon.
Amici curiae respond to the Department of Justice’s brief regarding Shelby County v. Holder and its relevance to Thirteenth Amendment cases.
In this brief, amici curiae explain that disparate impact liability in employment discrimination was not contemplated by the 88th Congress when it passed Title VII in 1964, has been bad public policy and is of dubious constitutionality. It therefore should not be used as a model for interpreting the Fair Housing Act passed in 1968.
In this brief, amici curiae explain that disparate impact liability in employment discrimination was not contemplated by the 88th Congress when it passed Title VII in 1964, has been bad public policy and is of dubious constitutionality. It therefore should not be used as a model for interpreting the Fair Housing Act passed in 1968.
12. Brief of Amici Curiae Gail Heriot and Peter Kirsanow, Shea v. Kerry (United States Supreme Court)