Affirmative Action

Is There A Critical Mass On The Supreme Court To Follow The Court’s Affirmative Action Precedents?

By

Is there anything more American than an argument at the Supreme Court about affirmative action?

It combines so many things unique to our country: an obsession with elite institutions (including both the Supreme Court and the University of Texas, one of our best public schools); passionate arguments about our nation’s long and complicated relationship with race; the relentless striving for success and attainment familiar to so many of us who want to be a named plaintiff in a Supreme Court case (or get into college, depending); and, of course, protests outside a government building.

My fellow lawyers, Alexis de Tocqueville was right — “[s]carcely any political question arises in the United States that is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question.” Surely this form of American exceptionalism should be the most celebrated by the noble readers of Above the Law.

If there is any advantage to the way some in our nation attempt to affect the presence of minorities in elite colleges — through litigation rather than, say, appropriations — it’s that it leads to an awesome spectacle at One First Street NE.

And to that spectacle we now turn….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Is There A Critical Mass On The Supreme Court To Follow The Court’s Affirmative Action Precedents?”

19 Comments

Morning Docket: 10.09.12

By

Sarah Jones

* “I don’t think that we even need to have a race box on the application.” Abigail Fisher is getting even more time in the spotlight thanks to this media interview, which is sure to be the first of many. [New York Times]

* “[T]hey didn’t do anything wrong civilly — and they certainly didn’t do anything wrong criminally.” Tell that to the prosecutors who are looking into the circumstances of Dewey & LeBoeuf’s epic fail. [Wall Street Journal]

* Lateral hiring in midsize/regional firms seems to be up for those with “real-world experience,” but the starting salaries aren’t anything to write home about — they’re still on the “low” side. [Connecticut Law Tribune]

* Jerry Sandusky’s sentencing hearing is today, and in addition to the tape he already released, he’s planning to read a statement before he receives what’s likely to be a life sentence. WE ARE… kind of tired of hearing about his supposed innocence. [CNN]

* “There are fewer interviews and fewer schools interviewing.” This week, would-be law profs who attend the AALS “meat market” will get a taste of what recent graduates have been experiencing. [National Law Journal]

* Sarah Jones, aka “The Dirty Bengals Cheerleader,” reached a plea agreement in her sexual misconduct case. She won’t get jail time, but she wants to go to law school. Same difference, amirite? [Washington Post]

* Alicia Guastaferro, the pageant princess-cum-alleged prostitute, will plead not guilty later this week. If Wife Swap had a “Where Are They Now” edition, this girl would assure good ratings. [Democrat and Chronicle]

8 Comments

A Preview of the Upcoming Supreme Court Term (OT 2012)

By

Right now is a great time to be a Supreme Court aficionado. There’s a big new book out about the Court, Jeffrey Toobin’s The Oath (affiliate link). And the new SCOTUS Term starts in just a few days, on Monday, October 1.

Given the time of the year, it’s not surprising that SCOTUS preview events are as common as Ninth Circuit reversals pro se cert petitions. I attended one sponsored by the Federalist Society earlier this month, where Kannon Shanmugam of Williams & Connolly offered excellent insights into October Term 2012. Our Supreme Court correspondent here at Above the Law, Matt Kaiser, went to a preview talk sponsored by the American Constitution Society (which he turned into Kaiser’s Guide To Bluffing Your Way Through Knowledge About The Supreme Court’s New Term).

That sounds like more than enough SCOTUS previews. But I couldn’t help myself from attending one more, due to the starpower of the panelists: Paul Clement, the former solicitor general who’s now a partner at Bancroft, and Tom Goldstein, the noted Supreme Court advocate and founder of the invaluable SCOTUSblog.

What did Messrs. Clement and Goldstein have to say about OT 2012?

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “A Preview of the Upcoming Supreme Court Term (OT 2012)”

5 Comments

Kaiser’s Guide To Bluffing Your Way Through Knowledge About The Supreme Court’s New Term to Non-Lawyers

By

October first is the start of the new Supreme Court term!

If, like many readers, you’re a few years out of law school, this may strike you with a mild sense of dread. You remember the heady days of law school when you followed every argument, opinion, and cert grant from One First Street Northeast with an excitement rivaled only by your enthusiasm for the starting salaries for first-year associates.

Alas, the years since law school haven’t been kind to your pants size or your level of engagement with the Supreme Court.

Now, I suspect, you worry that soon — at a family dinner, dropping off your kids at preschool, or anywhere else you interact with non-lawyers — someone will recognize that you are a lawyer, and ask you what to make of the new Supreme Court term.

You have three options for how to deal with this, now, before the media frenzy over the new Supreme Court term starts.

First, you can admit to yourself that you’re no longer the gunner you used to be. You can tell people that just don’t follow the Supreme Court anymore, since you’ve gotten really interested in your exciting new life doing document review for a municipal bond arbitration.

But you’re not going to do that. If you were that good at being honest with yourself, you aren’t likely to be the kind of person who went to law school in the first place.

Second, perhaps, you can wade through the volume of information out there about the new term. Go through SCOTUSblog with the same passion you now spend tracking whether your friends from law school have better careers than you do. Maybe go to one of the OT 2012 preview events that clog every convention hall and small town library starting in mid-September.

That takes time and energy. Tom Goldstein sometimes uses really long paragraphs, and you really wanted to spend more time Googling for topless pictures of Kate Middleton.

Instead, you could let me to one of those events for you. For the truly efficient, follow the jump, sit back, and enjoy Kaiser’s Guide To Bluffing Your Way Through Knowledge About the Supreme Court’s New Term to Non-Lawyers….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Kaiser’s Guide To Bluffing Your Way Through Knowledge About The Supreme Court’s New Term to Non-Lawyers”

6 Comments

Non-Sequiturs: 09.04.12

By

* Happy Blogiversary to… us. Above the Law turned six years old last week. In blog years, that’s like 100. I think we should put that on the masthead: Above the Law, Established circa 1912. In any event, thanks to all of our loyal readers who have been here from the beginning. Click on the link to take a look at how it all began. [Above the Law]

* Family claims they were kicked off a flight because the airline didn’t want their child with Down Syndrome sitting in first class. If they win, I think they are going to be able to afford a lot of first class flights in the future. [The Consumerist]

* Obama is going to have more judicial vacancies after his first term than he inherited from Bush. Part of the problem is that conservatives know how important the courts are and move to obstruct the President at every opportunity. Part of the problem is that progressives don’t seem to understand how important this issue is. [Boston Review]

* I hope many of you spent your Labor Day not feeling bad about having no paid labor. [The Onion]

* I do not rule out the possibility that the who pretend to be concerned that affirmative-action “hurts” minorities are the biggest goddamn hypocrites on the face of the Earth. [Accuracy in Academia]

* Don’t get me wrong, affirmative-action is so going down this upcoming term. There might be suitable alternatives in its place. I’m just finding it funny how some people are so outraged by this one program that allows colleges to “consider” race while developing their class. I can’t imagine how people would react if there was an inherent racial preference in American society for four hundred years. [SCOTUSblog]

13 Comments

Lawsuit of the Day: Fifty Shades of Ropes & Gray

By

“In accepting the offer to join Ropes & Gray, Ray accepted Roscoe Trimmier’s assurances that Ropes ‘does not see black and white, only shades of Ropes & Gray.’”

That’s paragraph 75 from the latest complaint filed by John H. Ray III, a 2000 graduate of Harvard Law School and an African-American man, against his former employer, Ropes & Gray. According to Ray, the firm, after initially embracing him with open arms, turned on him. Ray claims that he was subjected to racial discrimination and retaliation, which made his time at the firm more painful than pleasurable. And, unlike Anastasia Steele of Fifty Shades of Grey (affiliate link), Ray did not enjoy the alleged abuse.

When we first wrote about Ray, he was proceeding pro se against Ropes & Gray. Now he has hired counsel — an experienced employment-discrimination litigator who has appeared before in these pages.

Let’s find out who’s representing John Ray, and take a closer look at the complaint — which features an Above the Law shout-out, interestingly enough….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Lawsuit of the Day: Fifty Shades of Ropes & Gray”

22 Comments

Morning Docket: 05.08.12

By

The Snooki Defense

* Aw, come on, Mort, Dewey really have to pay you $61M? In case you missed it last night, the only thing that made the former vice chairman’s departure memo dramatic was the insane amount that he claims he’s owed. [DealBook / New York Times]

* Congratulations to Jacqueline H. Nguyen on her confirmation to the Ninth Circuit. She’s the first Asian American woman to sit on a federal appellate court, so she’s earned our judicial diva title (in a good way). You go girl! [Los Angeles Times]

* Google might’ve infringed upon Oracle’s copyrights, but a jury couldn’t decide if it constituted fair use. Sorry, Judge Alsup, but with that kind of a decision, you can bet your ass that there’ll be an appeal. [New York Times]

* A Harvard Law professor has come to Elizabeth Warren’s defense, claiming that an alleged affirmative action advantage played no role in her hiring. And besides, even if it did, it only played 1/32 of a role. [Boston Herald]

* Classes at Cooley Law’s Tampa Bay campus began last night. Unsurprisingly, the inaugural class is double the size originally projected, because everyone wants to attend the second-best school in the nation. [MLive]

* Albany Law will be having a three-day conference on the legal implications of the Civil War. This could be a little more exciting if presenters wore reenactment garb and did battle when it was over. [National Law Journal]

* Jury selection is underway in a second degree murder trial that will forever be known as the case where a defendant first raised the “Snooki Defense.” He didn’t kill his wife… but her spray tan did. [CBS Miami]

7 Comments

Non-Sequiturs: 05.02.12

By

* There is a difference between being “insensitive” and being wrong. It’s more important and less obvious than you might think. [Volokh Conspiracy]

* Is it harder to go to college in America today if you are a minority — or if you are poor? [Forbes]

* I live in Oakland, so I’m more surprised when a day goes by that I don’t see someone with marijuana sticking out of their pants. [Legal Juice]

* The finalists in the ABA Battle of the Bands sound pretty darn good. My vote will probably to go to Jenner & Block partner Joe Bisceglia rocking out to some old Chicago blues. [Legal Blog Watch]

* Uggs just won a $686 million judgment against counterfeiters. But for some reason, after years of asking every woman I know, no one has been able to explain to me why people insist on wearing them when it is more than 25 degrees outside. I just don’t understand the appeal. [Fashionista]

* It seems like NYU Law really doesn’t want to give up all of its employment data. Reminds me of playing “keep away” when I was seven, and specifically how the game always ended in shouting matches and damaged egos. [Law School Transparency]

* In other ping pong related news… [DealBreaker]

4 Comments

Another Perspective on the Baylor Law Admissions Data and Affirmative Action

By

Last Wednesday, we reported on Baylor Law School’s inadvertent release of personal academic information for its entire admitted class — names, addresses, GPAs, LSAT scores, and scholarship offers. Last Friday, my colleague Elie Mystal used this data to argue in defense of affirmative action.

We believe in offering a wide range of perspectives here at Above the Law. That’s one thing that’s nice about having four full-time writer/editors — myself, Elie, Staci Zaretsky, Chris Danzig — and about a dozen outside columnists.

Today we bring you a different viewpoint on the Baylor law admissions data. Prominent lawyer and blogger Ted Frank, previously profiled in these pages for his work in the class-action area, uses the same data to argue against affirmative action.

Let’s hear what he has to say, shall we?

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “Another Perspective on the Baylor Law Admissions Data and Affirmative Action”

53 Comments

The Baylor Law Data Dump, Now With Race and Scholarships

By

On Wednesday, we reported on Baylor Law School accidentally releasing personal academic information for its entire admitted class. It was a massive screw-up, and on Wednesday, we showed you the GPA and LSAT scores for Baylor’s admitted students (with the students’ names redacted, of course).

But there were other fields available in the accidentally released spreadsheet, including racial categorizations for each student and scholarship information. I didn’t include the race field earlier this week because, frankly, I didn’t want the entire news story (of the screw-up) to be overrun by a discussion about race and affirmative action.

But, look, I ain’t afraid of you people. Getting a complete racial breakdown of the class to go along with their grades and LSAT scores is a look inside the law school admissions process that we don’t often get to see.

So, let’s play our game. Looking at the Baylor numbers, you can see the affirmative action “bump” in LSAT scores, and to my eyes, it really shows how foolish the opponents of affirmative action really are….

double red triangle arrows Continue reading “The Baylor Law Data Dump, Now With Race and Scholarships”

278 Comments
Page 2 of 41234