Race Discrimination

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing - Podcast

Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast
Peter N. Kirsanow, Stanley Kurtz April 21, 2016

In July of 2015, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced its final rule on Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. HUD touts the rule, promulgated under the Fair Housing Act of 1928, as a critical tool to help communities “take significant actions to overcome historic patterns of segregation, achieve truly balanced and integrated living patterns, promote fair housing choice, and foster inclusive communities that are free from discrimination.” Critics charge that the program is a power grab that improperly applies disparate impact analysis and incorrectly views geographic clustering of racial and ethnic minorities as evidence of discrimination and segregation. Our experts discussed the merits of the rule from both law and policy perspectives.


  • Hon. Peter N. Kirsanow, Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
  • Stanley Kurtz, Senior Fellow, Ethics and Public Policy Center

Racial Preferences in Federal Government Contracting – Rothe Development Corporation v. Department of Defense - Podcast

Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast
David F. Barton March 17, 2016

On March 10, 2016, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Rothe Development Corporation v. Department of Defense. Rothe alleges that Congress has failed to bring a statutory racial classification under section 8(a) of the Small Business Act into compliance with subsequent Supreme Court precedent as well as a 2008 decision in which the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (in litigation also involving Rothe) unanimously struck down a Department of Defense affirmative action program as unconstitutional racial discrimination. The program struck down in Rothe required the DoD, the Coast Guard, the Air Force, and NASA to ensure that five percent of all contract dollars be awarded to individuals or businesses designated as disadvantaged individuals. Our expert argued the case before the D.C. Circuit.


  • David F. Barton, The Gardner Law Firm

American Multiculturalism: Its Force and Limits From 1776 to Today - Event Audio/Video

18th Annual Faculty Conference
Mary Anne Case, John C. Eastman, Richard W. Garnett, Heather MacDonald, Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz January 16, 2016

Since before the Revolution, American legal and political traditions have supported many forms of multiculturalism, through institutions such as freedom of association, religious liberty, parental rights, freedom of speech, private property, federalism, often open immigration policy, and the like. And those traditions have likewise imposed constraints on such multiculturalism. What can those traditions tell us about today’s multiculturalism debates?

This panel took place during the 18th Annual Faculty Conference at the Sheraton New York Times Square Hotel in New York, NY on January 9, 2016.

Panel: American Multiculturalism: Its Force and Limits From 1776 to Today
9:00 am - 10:45 am

  • Prof. Mary Anne Case, University of Chicago Law School
  • Prof. John C. Eastman, Chapman University School of Law
  • Prof. Richard W. Garnett, University of Notre Dame Law School
  • Ms. Heather Mac Donald, Manhattan Institute
  • Moderator: Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Georgetown University Law Center

Sheraton New York Times Square Hotel
New York, NY

Affirmative Action Again: Fisher v. University of Texas - Podcast

Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast
Roger B. Clegg, Theodore M. Shaw December 14, 2015

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.


  • 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

Race-Conscious College Admissions: Fisher v. University of Texas - Podcast

Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast
Joshua P. Thompson December 09, 2015

Two years ago, the Supreme Court’s 7-1 ruling in Fisher v. University of Texas required race-conscious college admissions programs to be subject to strict judicial scrutiny, mandating that such programs be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. On remand, the Fifth Circuit upheld the University of Texas’ admission policy as meeting that standard, but the case will once again be considered by the Supreme Court, and was argued on December 9. What are the issues now under consideration, and what are the arguments of each party? Why has the case returned to the Court a second time?


  • Joshua P. Thompson, Principal Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation