The University of Texas at Austin's admissions policy includes race as a subfactor in the Personal Achievement Index score, which is constitutional as long as it meets strict scrutiny and is not a mechanical plus factor for underrepresented minorities. The University's affirmative-action program met the strict scrutiny standard and is supported by a reasoned and principled explanation based on a year-long study. The University must reassess the constitutionality and efficacy of its admissions program based on experience and data, and ensure that race plays no greater role than necessary to meet its compelling interest of promoting cross-racial understanding, preparing for a diverse workforce and society, and cultivating leaders with legitimacy. The petitioner's chances of admission were impacted more by the Top Ten Percent Plan than the school's consideration of race under its holistic-review process. Judge Garza dissented.
The Supreme Court found that the University of Texas at Austin's use of race and ethnicity in admissions decisions violates the Equal Protection Clause and discriminates against Asian-American students. The University failed to identify specific interests that its plan serves, and its reliance on state demographics and a simple racial census is insufficient to justify a race-conscious plan. The Top Ten Percent Plan widens the "credentials gap" between minority and non-minority students, and UT's interest in intraracial diversity is too vague to satisfy strict scrutiny analysis. The Court ruled that UT's plan fails strict scrutiny as it is not narrowly tailored, and there is no evidence that race-blind, holistic review would not achieve UT's goals as well as its race-based policy. The lower court's decision to award a victory to UT was erroneous.
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.