MENU

Civil Rights

Subscribe in a reader

Subcommittees

  • Education
  • Electoral Process
  • Employment & Contracting
  • Second Amendment
  • State Initiatives

Book Review: The Right to Try

Engage, Volume 17, Issue 1
Evan Bernick February 01, 2016

Evan Bernick reviews Darcy Olsen's book The Right to Try and argues that the courts should recognize a constitutional right to try to save your own life using non-FDA-approved drugs... [Read Now!]

Packing Districts?: Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission - Podcast

Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast
Mark F. Hearne December 18, 2015

Last term, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld Arizona’s independent redistricting commission. State legislators had challenged the creation of such a commission, arguing that transferring their redistricting authority violated the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Now, in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the Court will consider a challenge to state legislative districts drawn up by the commission. A group of voters argue that the commission overpopulated Republican-dominated districts by packing in non-minority voters while placing minority voters in smaller, Democrat-dominated districts. The result, they argue, is the dilution of votes in GOP districts, which violates the “one person, one vote” guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Mark “Thor” Hearne, counsel for Harris in the case, discussed his impressions of oral arguments and made predictions about how the Court might rule in this important case.

Featuring:

  • Mark F. Hearne, II, Partner, Arent Fox LLP

“One Person, One Vote”: Evenwel v. Abbott Oral Argument Preview - Podcast

Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast
Bradley A. Benbrook, C. Dean McGrath December 18, 2015

Our Teleforum previewed the oral argument in the Supreme Court in Evenwel v. Abbott. What is meant, precisely, by the term “one person, one vote”? What are its implications for apportioning legislative districts? Does the Equal Protection Clause allow States to use total population, or does it require States to use voter population, when apportioning its legislative districts? What are the best arguments to be made by each side? These and other questions were addressed as we previewed one of the most talked-about cases of the Term.

Featuring:

  • Bradley A. Benbrook, Founding Partner, Benbrook Law Group
  • C. Dean McGrath Jr., Founder, McGrath & Associates

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.

Featuring:

  • 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

Packing Districts?: Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Civil Rights Practice Group Courthouse Steps Teleforum
Mark F. Hearne December 10, 2015

Last term, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld Arizona’s independent redistricting commission. State legislators had challenged the creation of such a commission, arguing that transferring their redistricting authority violated the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Now, in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the Court will consider a challenge to state legislative districts drawn up by the commission. A group of voters argue that the commission overpopulated Republican-dominated districts by packing in non-minority voters while placing minority voters in smaller, Democrat-dominated districts. The result, they argue, is the dilution of votes in GOP districts, which violates the “one person, one vote” guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Mark “Thor” Hearne, counsel for Harris in the case, will discuss his impressions of oral arguments and make predictions about how the Court might rule in this important case.

Featuring:

  • Mark F. Hearne, II, Partner, Arent Fox LLP

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?

Featuring:

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

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

Civil Rights Practice Group Courthouse Steps Teleforum
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 is once again headed to the Supreme Court, to be 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?

Featuring:

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