2016 National Student Symposium - "Poverty, Inequality, and the Law" University of Virginia School of Law - February 26-27, 2016 Friday, February 26, 03:00 PMUniversity of Virginia School of Law
580 Massie Road
Charlottesville, VA 22903
The Federalist Society of the University of Virginia School of Law is excited to host the 35th National Student Symposium on February 26-27, 2016. Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast
On the topic of poverty, liberals claim the moral high ground. Their response includes federal and local interventions including entitlements, higher taxes, and a generally bigger and more active government. Despite liberals' insistence to the contrary, conservatives and libertarians also care about the poor, but they have their own ideas about how to lift people out of poverty. This symposium will explore these ideas.
On December 9, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Abigail Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin. In this case, Ms. Fisher challenges the use of racial and ethnic preferences in undergraduate admissions at the University. This is the case’s second trip to the Supreme Court; in 2013, the Court reversed a Fifth Circuit decision that had upheld the University’s policy, and said the lower court had been too deferential to the school, particularly with respect to applying the “narrow tailoring” prong of strict scrutiny. On remand, the Fifth Circuit again ruled for the University, and last summer the Court granted Ms. Fisher’s petition.
Mr. Clegg and Prof. Shaw discussed what the Court is likely to do with the case, as well as what the Court should do with the case. The Court’s review comes at an interesting time, with numerous campus protests on race-related issues. Also of interest is the fact that Ms. Fisher’s lawyers have now filed lawsuits against Harvard and the University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill, and have emphasized allegations of discrimination against Asian Americans.
Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast
- Roger B. Clegg, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity
- Prof. Theodore M. Shaw, Julius L. Chambers Distinguished Professor of Law, and Director of the Center for Civil Rights, University of North Carolina School of Law
Andrew Grossman December 08, 2015
At issue in Evenwel v. Abbott, argued on December 8, is whether the three-judge district court correctly held that the “one person, one vote” principle under the Equal Protection Clause allows States to use total population, and does not require States to use voter population, when apportioning state legislative districts. Must each voter’s vote count equally and, if so, how is that to be accomplished? Does the scheme under consideration dilute the votes of certain people and, if so, how are their interests to be balanced against the goal of attaining majority-minority districts? What level of judicial scrutiny will be applied in this case? How does this case differ from Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission? Andrew Grossman attended the oral arguments and offered his impressions and predictions on a Courthouse Steps Teleforum conference call. His piece "Evenwel v. Abbott: What Does One Person, One Vote Really Mean?" is valuable background reading on this critical case.
Short video debating the possible consequences of Obergefell v. Hodges.
- Andrew Grossman, Associate, Baker & Hostetler, and Adjunct Scholar, The Cato Institute
Kyle Duncan of Duncan PLLC, an attorney in private practice who serves as Special Assistant Attorney General for Louisiana, and Ilya Somin, Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law, discuss potential consequences of a ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. This case considers whether or not the 14th Amendment requires that states allow same sex couples to marry, as well as whether or not the 14th Amendment requires states to recognize same sex marriages performed lawfully in other states.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker. Short video explaining Obergefell v. Hodges
Kyle Duncan of Duncan PLLC, an attorney in private practice who serves as Special Assistant Attorney General for Louisiana, and Ilya Somin, Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law, discuss Obergefell v. Hodges. This case considers whether or not the 14th Amendment requires that states allow same sex couples to marry, as well as whether or not the 14th Amendment requires states to recognize same sex marriages performed lawfully in other states.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.