This post is part of Law Street’s continuing analysis of the recent Supreme Court rulings. To read the rest of the coverage click here.

Affirmative Action: Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

The decision: the Supreme Court ruled that the University of Texas at Austin can, legally, continue to factor race into admissions decisions.

This case has a lot of history

This isn’t exactly a new issue–or a new case. Affirmative action has been in and out of court for years and Abigail Fisher first brought this particular suit forward in 2012. It made its way up to the Supreme Court in 2013 only to be kicked back to lower courts.

It started back in 2008 when the University of Texas at Austin declined to admit Fisher into the school. Fisher then sued the university, claiming that UT denied her admission because she is Caucasian. Yes, you read that right. Fisher felt disadvantaged for being white.

How did that happen?

UT Austin, being the state’s flagship school, automatically accepts any applicant from a Texas public school who is in the top 10 percent of his or her graduating class. That batch of 90th percentile students makes up about 75 percent of UT’s incoming freshman class. For the last 25 percent, the university combines two scores to evaluate applicants.

Alongside SAT scores and high school grades, which make up an applicant’s Academic Index, students not automatically admitted are given a Personal Achievement Index (PAI). The PAI is UT’s way of giving people credit for non-academic factors like race, economic background, and life experience.

Check out this article: to read more about the case’s background.

So what does today’s ruling mean?

The 4-3 decision upholds the use of affirmative action, to an extent. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated that admissions officers can’t run wild with affirmative action. He wrote:

“The Court’s affirmance of the University’s admissions policy today does not necessarily mean the University may rely on that same policy without refinement. It is the University’s ongoing obligation to engage in constant deliberation and continued reflection regarding its admissions policies”

You can put your fingers away, we did the math for you. Seven of the eight justices weighed in, while Justice Elena Kagan recused herself because she was involved as solicitor general.

You can read the opinion here.

Samantha Reilly

Samantha Reilly is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. A New Jersey native, she is pursuing a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Maryland, College Park. Contact Samantha at SReilly@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Upholds UT Austin’s Affirmative Action Program appeared first on Law Street.

The prison system is meant to deter crime, provide public safety, and rehabilitate criminals. But today, the Supreme Court told us that too often that last aim is ignored in the case of juvenile offenders. The court ruled 6-3 to allow prisoners convicted of a crime they committed while they were juveniles to have their life without parole sentences reconsidered.

In a 2012 ruling, Miller v. Alabama, the Supreme Court barred “life without parole” sentencing for juveniles, but only for future convictions, affecting none of the currently imprisoned people, for the sake of preserving the “finality of conviction.”Today in Montgomery vs. Louisiana, the court had the rare effect of retroactively altering the sentences of inmates. The case, centered around Henry Montgomery, a man who shot and killed a deputy sheriff at the age of 17. Montgomery is now 69, and for his entire adult life has known nothing but the prison system.

#SCOTUS holds Miller’s prohibition on mandatory life w/out parole for juvenile offenders IS retroactive in cases of state collateral review

— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) January 25, 2016

Some states individually chose to adjust the sentences of convicted juveniles following the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling. This means that the new retroactive ruling only affects the sentences of about 1,000 inmates out of the 2,341 people convicted as juveniles facing life sentences, according to a study by The Phillips Black Project. More than half of that population had already been allowed to seek reconsideration of their sentences, as long as they can prove that their “crimes reflected their transient immaturity.”

The entire course of this argument hinges on whether a life sentence should only apply to an incorrigible person–that is, one with no hope of rehabilitation–and whether a juvenile is capable of being incorrigible at a young age. Justice Kennedy wrote in his opinion that “prisoners like Montgomery must be given the opportunity to show their crime did not reflect irreparable corruption; and, if it did not, their hope for some years of life outside prison walls must be restored.” This ruling adds on to the ban on “life without parole” sentencing for juveniles unless the prosecutor can prove that the specific individual is beyond saving. While standards of incorrigibility vary by state, they typically focus on the accused showing repeated examples of behavior and no response to reprimands from authority.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Undoes “Life Without Parole” Sentences For Juveniles appeared first on Law Street.

A contentious court battle has left California teachers in need of a new tenure system, after the California Supreme Court ruled that the current model does not allow all students equal access to education.

Back in February, nine students sued the school system. The students argued that the process by which teachers receive tenure and the way teachers are distributed to schools created inequity in the education received by minority students with lower income status.

One of the first things the ruling  references is Brown v. Board of Education, a landmark case that stated all students must have equal opportunity and access to education under the 14th Amendment– specifically, the equal protection clause. The case looked at three facets of the system: the 2 year tenure track, firing process, and “last in, first out” policy that led to newest teachers automatically being laid off first– regardless of how effective they were. All of these policies were found to be unconstitutional.

Furthermore, the court argued the minority and low-income students were disproportionately affected by these policies.

So, what are the implications of this ruling?

1. Other states will see similar lawsuits

California is not the only state that has rules like these, so it’s only a matter of time before other states are faced with people challenging their tenure laws, as well. It will be interesting to see if all states rule the same way- in all likelihood, they will not. Some might say these kinds of tenure programs are not unconstitutional, which could lead to drastically different tenure models in each state. There is also the possibility that some groups will try to appeal rulings to the Supreme Court. That’s still pretty far off, though.

2. Unions may get more creative in protecting teachers

This ruling does not remove the possibility of a tenure system for teachers, but makes clear that the system currently in place is unconstitutional. California, and other states who want to be proactive, will need to reassess the ways they protect their teachers. For example, the track to tenure may need to take more time, the firing process may need to get simpler, and newer teachers might not automatically be the first to go during layoffs. Of course, this ruling did not provide any specific limitations or recommendations for what changes should be made, so that debate will have to take place in the legislature.

3. Not a “fix all” for the education system

Education reform advocates are cheering after this ruling, but it is important that we do not get ahead of ourselves. Getting rid of tenure alone is not going to change the bad schools in California, because there are astronomically large social and bureaucratic barriers that play a much bigger role than this tenure program. As Jesse Rothstein points out in the New York Times op-ed, getting rid of bad teachers and fully integrating students in the classroom are not mutually exclusive. Even with good teachers, issues like poverty and language barriers affect how effective teachers can be in classrooms. While the tenure system certainly impacted students by way of ineffective teachers- even the best teachers in the world will still have a hard time in the most difficult schools.

Whether you consider this a win for students or a loss for teachers, one thing is for certain: no one has the answers to come to a balanced solution. As Judge Treu notes in the final paragraph of his ruling, “It is not the function of this Court to dictate or even advise the legislature as to how to replace the Challenged statutes.” Until state lawmakers come up with a new system, balancing the interests of students and teachers, this ruling might not be a win for anyone.

[CNN] [Court Ruling] [New York Times]

—

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured image courtesy of [Colleen via Flickr]

Molly Hogan

Molly Hogan is a student at The George Washington University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Molly at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Major Ruling in Education: California Must Change Tenure System appeared first on Law Street.