Top related persons:
Top related locs:
Top related orgs:

Search resuls for: "prelogar"


8 mentions found


The Supreme Court heard two high-profile challenges to race-conscious university admissions processes. The court's conservatives appeared open to ending race as a factor in university admissions. Thomas, the second Black person to ever serve on the bench, has long been critical of race-conscious admissions policies. They cannot adopt race-conscious admissions and sit back reflexively and let that play out forever into the future," Prelogar said. "At present, it's not possible to achieve that diversity without race-conscious admissions, including at the nation's service academies."
"Racial classifications are wrong," the attorney Patrick Strawbridge said in his opening argument on behalf of the group Students for Fair Admissions. The Supreme Court began hearing arguments Monday in two cases that challenge the use of race-based considerations to determine who gets admitted to American colleges. Conservatives hold a 6-3 super-majority on the Supreme Court and are expected to be open to the arguments for ending affirmative action. The cases being argued are Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard, case No. 20-1199, and Students for Fair Admissions v. the University of North Carolina, case No.
WASHINGTON — The Biden administration has urged the Supreme Court to reject a novel legal theory pushed by Republicans in an upcoming elections case from North Carolina that could strip state courts of their ability to oversee federal election-related disputes. The state court, basing its decision on protections in North Carolina's Constitution, adopted a map drawn by experts that is less favorable to Republicans. Republican lawmakers argue that the state court did not have the authority to adopt the new maps because, in the federal elections context, legislatures have unique power derived from the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution. That provision gives state legislatures the power to set the "time, place and manner" in which federal elections are held in that state. If the Supreme Court rules for Republicans, elections would be thrown into chaos because each state could have different rules for federal and state elections, she said, adding that such a ruling "risks magnifying confusion and uncertainty for both voters and elections officials."
They say that the Justice Department, in defending the law, and an appeals court, in upholding it, relied upon the so-called “Insular Cases,” a series of long-criticized early 20th century Supreme Court rulings. The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case means the lower court ruling remains in place. “The subordinate, inferior non-citizen National status relegates American Samoans to second-class participation in the Republic," the challengers’ lawyers say in court papers. American Samoa is the only territory to which Congress has not extended birthright citizenship. Of the current nine justices, two of them — liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor and conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch — have expressed concern about the Insular Cases remaining on the books.
The Supreme Court refused to grant Trump's request to intervene in the Mar-a-Lago records case. Trump asked the court to vacate part of a lower court ruling granting the DOJ access to a set of classified records. Trump's lawyers had asked that a special master review the records for privileged materials before the DOJ could use them. In its order, the Supreme Court gave no indication of dissents or the reasoning behind its denial of Trump's request. With his request to the Supreme Court, Trump narrowly challenged a decision by a three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
The Supreme Court on Thursday denied a request by former President Donald Trump to vacate a lower appeals court ruling in a case related to the FBI raid and seizure of documents from his Florida residence last month. Circuit of Appeals barred that watchdog, who was appointed by a federal judge, from examining the classified documents. Trump's lawyers last week asked the Supreme Court to reverse that decision, arguing that it "impairs substantially the ongoing, time-sensitive work of the special master." On Tuesday, the DOJ urged the Supreme Court to deny Trump's appeal. Even if he had prevailed, the DOJ would have continued its review of the classified documents.
WASHINGTON — The Biden administration on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court to reject former President Donald Trump's request to allow the special master reviewing documents seized from Mar-a-Lago access to those marked as classified. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said in court papers that Trump would suffer "no harm at all" if the documents are temporarily withheld from the special master. Addressing Trump's potential ownership stake in the documents, including possible assertions of attorney-client privilege of executive privilege, Prelogar said Trump had "no plausible claims." Under federal law, official White House records are federal property and must be handed over to the National Archives when the president leaves office. Trump says he did nothing improper and wants Dearie to determine the status of the documents, including those marked as classified.
The challengers say the measure impermissibly interferes with interstate commerce in part because almost all of the pork sold in California is produced out of state. Lower courts upheld the measure, prompting the challengers to turn to the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority. “What the pork producers are asking for is quite unprecedented,” said Brian Frazelle, a lawyer with the Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal legal group that filed a brief supporting the state. The groups say in court papers that Proposition 12 “will transform the pork industry nationwide” because currently nearly all farmers keep sows in pens that do not comply with the law. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is defending the law, said in court papers that the measure is valid under the commerce clause because it is not aimed at benefiting California producers over out-of-state competitors.
Total: 8