Supreme Court of the United States – Law Street https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com Law and Policy for Our Generation Wed, 13 Nov 2019 21:46:22 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.8 100397344 Supreme Court Breakdown: States Can Ban Affirmative Action https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/supreme-court-states-can-ban-affirmative-action/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/supreme-court-states-can-ban-affirmative-action/#respond Fri, 25 Apr 2014 19:39:30 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=14932

Since the Supreme Court released its ruling on affirmative action in Michigan earlier this week (which we covered back when it was argued in October), there has been a lot of controversy surrounding it. Some say the justices ignored very real problems of race in America, turning a blind eye to such a serious topic, […]

The post Supreme Court Breakdown: States Can Ban Affirmative Action appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Since the Supreme Court released its ruling on affirmative action in Michigan earlier this week (which we covered back when it was argued in October), there has been a lot of controversy surrounding it. Some say the justices ignored very real problems of race in America, turning a blind eye to such a serious topic, while others say the court left it to the hands of the voters. But what many people are failing to overlook is that this decision does not speak to the merits or disadvantages of affirmative action: it looks at what a state’s rights are when deciding how to apply affirmative action.

Before we get into the semantics of the ruling, it’s important to go over some background of affirmative action cases.

Way back in 1978, the Supreme Court decided setting racial quotas was unconstitutional in Regents v. Bakke. Basically, a college could not decide to admit X percent of students of a certain race based on their race alone. The court upheld, however, the larger idea of affirmative action- saying schools could consider race as one of many factors in admissions. That holds true to this day.

Fast forward to 2003, when the University of Michigan was sued in Gratz v. Bollinger because it has applied an admissions policy in which minority students are awarded certain “points” based on their race. The Court held that this was unconstitutional because it did not allow the school to look at applicants as individuals, rather, assigned preferential treatment based on race alone.

But that is not all- also in 2003, the University of Michigan Law School was sued in Grutter v. Bollinger, under similar claims, that the University’s consideration of race in admissions was unconstitutional. But the Law School’s admissions policies regarding race (which were seemingly less stringent than the undergrad ones) were upheld and Constitutional.

So what’s a state to do after its premier educational institutions keep getting sued?

Outlaw affirmative action, of course. And Michigan did just that in 2006, when 58 percent of the state voted in favor of outlawing it. Needless to say, this caused a lot of controversy among people who hold that affirmative action is a helpful and necessary way of ensuring equality in schools. So people sued the state, a lower court upheld the ban as legal, the ruling was appealed, and the appellate court determined it was unconstitutional. And that brings us to the Supreme Court hearing the case.

The most important thing to remember about this case is that it does not decide anything about affirmative action on its own- since 1978, we have known that it is legal to consider race in admissions. This case, as stated in the opinion, deals with “whether, and in what manner, voters in the states may choose to prohibit the consideration of racial preferences in governmental decisions, in particular with respect to school admissions.”

Basically, the Court had to look at whether voters in a state could decide that they do not want to take affirmative action policies into account at their state colleges – not whether or not affirmative action is good or bad, or even constitutional in its own right. Michigan is not the only state to have outlawed affirmative action, it joins seven others: California, Arizona, Florida, Washington, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and New Hampshire. The only thing this ruling has done is say that citizens have the ability to enact laws in their states that make affirmative action illegal. Those laws may not be agreeable, and many people may take exception to them; but the Court has ruled that states are able to decide on policies like these for themselves.

But when the 6-2 decision affirming Michigan’s right to outlaw affirmative action came out, there was an uproar from people who claimed the courts were refusing to take minority rights into consideration. But that’s not what the Court was doing. It was not commenting on whether or not affirmative action should be implemented- that is up to the members of each state. Furthermore, the Court’s ruling also has no bearing on the affirmative action policies of private universities within these states.

When the Supreme Court makes decisions, it is important to keep in mind their decisions are based off of legal statutes, not emotions or what “feels right.” It is easy to want to Supreme Court to rule a certain way, especially for programs like affirmative action which have been lauded by many as a step in the right direction for racial equality. But it is not right to expect them to do so, if there is a legal precedent behind an opposite outcome.

[Michigan Ruling] [Regents v. Bakke] [Gratz v. Bollinger] [Grutter v. Bollinger] [USA Today]

Molly Hogan (@molly_hogan13)

Featured Image Courtesy of [Marty Hogan 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 Supreme Court Breakdown: States Can Ban Affirmative Action appeared first on Law Street.

]]>
https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/supreme-court-states-can-ban-affirmative-action/feed/ 0 14932
SCOTUSBlog Press Pass Not Renewed: What You Need to Know https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/scotusblog-press-pass-not-renewed-what-you-need-to-know/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/scotusblog-press-pass-not-renewed-what-you-need-to-know/#comments Thu, 17 Apr 2014 16:51:13 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=14541

SCOTUSBlog made headlines yesterday when they publicized that the press pass for their Supreme Court reporter, Lyle Denniston, was not being renewed by the Senate Press Gallery. The outlet announced this news in a letter to their readers both on their website and via an email blast to followers. As the Supreme Court usually defers […]

The post SCOTUSBlog Press Pass Not Renewed: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

SCOTUSBlog made headlines yesterday when they publicized that the press pass for their Supreme Court reporter, Lyle Denniston, was not being renewed by the Senate Press Gallery. The outlet announced this news in a letter to their readers both on their website and via an email blast to followers. As the Supreme Court usually defers to the passes granted by the Senate Press Gallery, this means that SCOTUSBlog’s ability to cover the Court will be limited as well.

The entire thing seems incredibly confusing, so here is a quick, simple breakdown:

  • The Supreme Court does not issue its own credentials. Instead, it usually defers to credentials issued by other branches, such as Congress, or the White House.
  • A Senate Press Pass is important to a publication like SCOTUSBlog because it allows them to sit in on nominations, and other important Supreme Court related decisions, such as budgeting.
  • After years of trying, SCOTUSBlog received a Senate Press Pass last year.
  • The Supreme Court still denied them credentials, stating that they were reviewing their policies.
  • The Senate Press Gallery has now also revoked that pass from SCOTUSBlog.
  • Credentials are approved for the Press Gallery by the Standing Committee of Correspondents, currently composed of Siobhan Hughes, Chairwoman, Wall Street Journal; Peter Urban, Secretary, Stephens Media Group; Colby Itkowitz, Washington Post; Kate Hunter, Bloomberg; and Emily Ethridge, CQ/Roll Call.
  • In the meantime, SCOTUSBlog does have one reporter is who accredited through another news affiliation, and will continue to cover the Court through public seats.
  • SCOTUSBlog has said that they will appeal the rejection, and “litigate the issue” if necessary.

All in all, the entire issues seems surprising and incredibly odd, considering that the outlet has, in fact, won numerous awards for their coverage of the Supreme Court. 

SCOTUSBlog has had a history of struggling with the credentials process for a varied hodgepodge of strange reasons. According to Joe Keenan, who headed up the Senate Press Gallery in 2012, SCOTUSBlog  “failed to show that they were separate from the law firm,” that the founders, Tom Goldstein and Amy Howe, practice at and were rejected that year. 

SCOTUSBlog tweaked their processes and policies to become eligible for that press pass that is now not being renewed.

As of press time the Senate Press Gallery staff are not commenting, and neither SCOTUSBlog nor the Court has yet responded to my request for comment.

As of yet, no one can do more than speculate as to why the credentials will not be renewed by the Senate Press Gallery, but a quick read of the policies seems to indicate that the requirements for credentials are outdated, at best. The Senate Press Gallery’s credentials page states that credentials are available, “‘to bone fide correspondents of repute in their profession’ who are full-time, paid correspondents of recognized news organizations.” The policies go on to state how the reporter must be part of a company whose principal business is the dissemination of news and cannot be involved in another special interest.

There’s nothing in these policies that indicate why SCOTUSBlog would not qualify for the press pass, unless those policies were being interpreted from an antiquated point of a view. I’m just speculating here of course, but my point is that unlike these policies seem to require, news and journalism aren’t cut and dry the way they used to be. A blogger can provide newsworthy content alongside a full-time job. A journalist can viably work for free while making money through other sources. In this Internet age of free information and ready dissemination, our identities are not mutually exclusive. Here at Law Street, that rings true for so many of us — I am both a writer and a student, and my form of writing does not take the traditional format that it could have before the Internet. If I’m right, the press credentials process needs to be changed to reflect the evolution of our journalistic system.

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Rogers Cadenhead via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney
Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUSBlog Press Pass Not Renewed: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

]]>
https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/scotusblog-press-pass-not-renewed-what-you-need-to-know/feed/ 2 14541