Supreme Court watch

Promoting geographic diversity doesn't implicate a protected class on its face. In practice it is possible that it would have a disparate outcome barred by federal law.

I was under the impression that the legislature in Virginia had already minimized UVa's funding, which is part of the justification for high in-state tuition rates.

 

Someone could argue that if the parents didn't like it, they could move to a different region. You can change your region. You cannot change your race (well, usually )

 

As I understand it, the challenge is not about the 10 percent rule. It's about the fact that after the 10 percent rule is applied, that race can be considered a factor in the other eight percent or so of a class. It's probably not in all but a small handful of cases, but we're talking legal principle here.

 

Opponents of abortion will come to the Supreme Court on Tuesday to challenge a California law they say is an unconstitutional violation of their free speech rights in a case that could impact what states can and can't direct abortion providers or opponents to tell women.

 

"The Supreme Court declared a clause in federal law, requiring the deportation of immigrants convicted of a "crime of violence," unconstitutionally vague Tuesday.

It's a blow to the Trump Justice Department, and came at the hands, ironically of conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, who sided with the court's liberals in a 5-4 decision.

In 2015, the court also held that a clause alluding to a "violent felony" in the Armed Career Criminal Act was unconstitutionally vague.

For background on the case, Sessions v. Dimaya, here's Oyez's summary:"


Supreme Court Strikes Down Part Of Immigration Law

 

I'm not sure that ironic is ever the right word for what you're trying to say, but as it keeps happening (see healthcare for example), this is becoming less and less surprising.

 

Gorsuch had better have some premier security.

 

Why? Is he planning to moonlight as EPA chief?

 

You won't be able to evade your use tax obligation by shopping online anymore.

SCOTUS overruled its earlier decisions in National Bellas Hess and Quill, which had held only sellers with physical presence in a state can be required to collect and remit sales/use taxes.

Overruling earlier cases is big deal, but it looks like the Court's rationale in doing so here doesn't create any broad rule applicable to other cases.

 

Other than the GOP-packed SCOTUS won't really consider precedent when other, more life-altering cases, come before it.

 

Nah, security to protect himself in case some Trump supporters want to have him whacked.