MENU

Civil Rights

Subscribe in a reader

Subcommittees

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

Supreme Court Rules on Affirmative Action and Immigration - Podcast

Civil Rights and Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Groups Podcast
Josh Blackman, Roger B. Clegg, Hans A. von Spakovsky June 23, 2016

On June 23, 2016, the United States Supreme Court issued a 4-3 decision in Fisher v. University of Texas, upholding the University’s affirmative action program. It also announced a 4-4 tie in United States v. Texas, affirming the decision of the Fifth Circuit to block President Obama’s executive order on immigration. Our experts discussed both developments and answered audience questions.

Featuring:

  • Prof. Josh Blackman, Assistant Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law
  • Roger B. Clegg, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity
  • Hon. Hans A. von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation

Supreme Court Rules on Affirmative Action and Immigration

Civil Rights and Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Groups Courthouse Steps Teleforum
Josh Blackman, Roger B. Clegg, Hans A. von Spakovsky June 23, 2016

This morning, the United States Supreme Court issued a 4-3 decision in Fisher v. University of Texas, upholding the University’s affirmative action program. It also announced a 4-4 tie in United States v. Texas, affirming the decision of the Fifth Circuit to block President Obama’s executive order on immigration. Our experts will discuss both developments and answer audience questions.

Featuring:

  • Prof. Josh Blackman, Assistant Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law
  • Roger B. Clegg, President and General Counsel, Center for Equal Opportunity
  • Hon. Hans A. von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation

Disparate Impact: Reducing Innovation in the Workplace? - Event Audio/Video

Fourth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference
Gail Heriot, James P. Scanlan, James Sharf, John S. Irving May 20, 2016

The slogan "Personnel is policy" reflects the principle that hiring the right people is one of the most important things that employers do. An employer with an innovative approach to bringing on board the best people has a critical edge over her competition. But the rise of interpretations of federal employment law that basically give the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") veto power over nearly any employment decision means that many creative ideas about hiring will be stillborn. Notably, the EEOC interprets federal civil rights law not just to prohibit employers from discriminating on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, and age, but also on practices that have a "disparate impact" on members of such groups even if the practice is not actually discriminatory.  Because virtually any job qualification has a disparate impact on members of some such group, this interpretation confers extraordinary powers on the EEOC. Disparate impact is widely believed to have led many employers to abandon paper and pencil tests of cognitive ability. More recently, employers have been discouraged from using the Internet to recruit because racial minorities were thought to lack access to the internet relative to members of other racial and ethnic groups. Further, the EEOC also has put pressure on employers to abandon the use of credit and criminal background checks because of their alleged disparate impact on  racial minorities. This panel will discuss how the metastasis of disparate impact has strangled innovative hiring strategies in these areas as well as others and other perverse consequences of disparate impact's growth.

This panel was presented during the Fourth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference on May 17, 2016, at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC.

Featuring:

  • Hon. Gail Heriot, United States Commission on Civil Rights, and Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of Law
  • Mr. James Scanlan, Attorney at Law
  • Mr. James Sharf, Sharf & Associates
  • Moderator: Mr. John Irving, Of Counsel, Kirkland & Ellis

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

Sex and Gender Identity under Title IX: New Guidance for Interpretation - Podcast

Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast
M. Edward Whelan May 19, 2016

On Friday, May 13, the Department of Education and the Department of Justice jointly released new guidance outlining how educators are to interpret Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972; specifically in the context of transgender students. Under Title IX, schools that receive federal money must not discriminate on the basis of a student’s sex. Friday’s new guidance directs that educators are to consider a student’s sex to mean the gender with which that student self-identifies, not the gender on their birth certificate. Key implications of the guidance are that students will participate in sex-segregated activities and use bathroom facilities according to self-identification, regardless of what school records or identification documents indicate. Our expert discussed the implications of the new guidance.

Featuring:

  • M. Edward Whelan, President, Ethics and Public Policy Center

Sex and Gender Identity under Title IX: New Guidance for Interpretation

Civil Rights Practice Group Teleforum
M. Edward Whelan May 19, 2016

On Friday, May 13, the Department of Education and the Department of Justice jointly released new guidance outlining how educators are to interpret Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972; specifically in the context of transgender students. Under Title IX, schools that receive federal money must not discriminate on the basis of a student’s sex. Friday’s new guidance directs that educators are to consider a student’s sex to mean the gender with which that student self-identifies, not the gender on their birth certificate. Key implications of the guidance are that students will participate in sex-segregated activities and use bathroom facilities according to self-identification, regardless of what school records or identification documents indicate. Our expert will discuss the implications of the new guidance.

Featuring:

  • M. Edward Whelan, President, Ethics and Public Policy Center

Fourth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference

Law & Innovation
May 17, 2016

The Fourth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference was held on Tuesday, May 17, 2016, at The Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The theme of the conference was "Law & Innovation".

Racial Mirroring

Federalist Society Review, Volume 17, Issue 2
Dawinder "Dave" S. Sidhu May 13, 2016
Constitution

Prof. Dawinder Sidhu argues that attempts to engineer public work forces to match the racial makeups of the communities they serve violate the Equal Protection Clause and cause social harm. [Read Now]

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

Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast
Hans A. von Spakovsky April 22, 2016

On April 20, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, a case challenging Arizona's state legislative district map as partisan gerrymandering. Our expert discussed the opinion and what it means for the Court’s voting rights jurisprudence.

Featuring:

  • Hon. Hans A. von Spakovsky, Manager, Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation

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.

Featuring:

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