As promised last week, we’re back today with a summary of Students for Fair Admission, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (No. 20-119), where a 6-3 Court held that Harvard’s and the University of North Carolina’s race-conscious admission policies violated the Equal Protection Clause. Given the case’s importance—to say nothing of the sheer volume of the opinions, concurrences, and dissents, which collectively
Read More Students for Fair Admission, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (No. 20-119)Supreme Court Updates
Moore v. Harper (No. 21-1271)
Posted in OT22, Supreme Court Updates
- 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (No. 21-476), where the Court held 6-3 that the First Amendment bars Colorado from using its public-accommodations law to require a website designer to create wedding websites for same-sex couples, because that would compel her to “speak” contrary to her personal
Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. (No. 21-1168), Counterman v. Colorado (No. 22-138), Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski (No. 22-105)
Posted in OT22, Supreme Court Updates
- In Students for Fair Admission v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (No. 20-1199), a 6-3 Court declared the admissions programs of Harvard College and the University of North Carolina unconstitutional, concluding that race-conscious admission programs do not
Arizona v. Navajo Nation (No. 21-1484), Yegiazaryan v. Smagin (No. 22-381), Pugin v. Garland (No. 22-23)
Posted in OT22, Supreme Court Updates
- In Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railroad (No. 22-1168), the Court’s three most conservative justices united with its two most liberal ones to uphold a Pennsylvania statute providing that companies that register to do business in the state thereby consent to the Pennsylvania courts exercising general personal jurisdiction
Haaland v. Brackeen (No. 21-376), United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc. (No. 21-1052), Lora v. United States (No. 21-376)
Posted in OT22, Supreme Court Updates
- Pugin v. Garland (No. 22-23), a 6-3 decision (with Justices Jackson and Gorsuch swapping places from the most-common 6-3 line-up) holding that an offense can “relate to obstruction of
Health & Hospital Corp. of Marion County v. Talevski (No. 21-806), Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin (No. 22-227), Smith v. United States (No. 21-1576)
Posted in OT22, Supreme Court Updates