Legal Briefs

Brief of 823 Social Scientists as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents

It is vital that the Court be informed by the newest and most rigorous peer-reviewed research and statistical analyses when considering an issue that is so critical for all of the nation’s selective colleges and universities. We provide the Court with the most reliable social science evidence that bears directly on whether the Fifth Circuit faithfully applied the Court’s standards in Fisher v. University of Texas, 133 S. Ct. 2411 (2013), in concluding that UT Austin’s admissions policy withstands strict scrutiny. This brief reflects a broad consensus shared by the hundreds of undersigned researchers at leading universities across the U.S. on the key issues before the Court.

Amicus Brief in Schuette Case

No. 12-682 In The Supreme Court of the United States. BILL SCHUETTE, MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL, Petitioner, v. COALITION TO DEFEND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, INTEGRATION AND IMMIGRANT RIGHTS AND FIGHT FOR EQUALITY BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY (BAMN), et al., and CHASE CANTRELL, et al. Respondents.

Coalition Brief in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, No. 12-682

COALITION RESPONDENTS’ BRIEF ON THE MERITS

Brief of Chase Cantrel et al. in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, No. 12-682

BRIEF FOR RESPONDENTS CHASE CANTRELL ET AL.

The Research Basis for Affirmative Action: A Statement by Leading Researchers

CRP offers the following brief summary of major research findings to help university leaders and communities formulate plans and justifications that both satisfy the legal requisites of strict scrutiny and have a firm grounding in research.

Statement of Nation’s Leading Constitutional Law Scholars on U.S. Supreme Court’s Affirmative Action Ruling

The undersigned scholars have created an independent assessment of the ruling in Fisher v. University of Texas, at Austin, announced June 24, 2013 by the U.S. Supreme Court. The statement hails the reaffirmation of the precedents of the last 35 years supporting affirmative action, and concludes that there is no reason for colleges to abandon their programs. The statement also advises universities that they will need to provide ongoing documentation of the reasons for their plan and that their consideration of race is carried out to the degree necessary to achieve diversity.

Resource Materials for the Brief of American Social Science Researchers

The following works are cited in the Brief of American Social Science Researchers in Fisher v University of Texas at Austin.

Brief of American Social Science Researchers in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

This brief focuses primarily on the means the University uses to leverage the educational benefits of diversity and to serve its institutional mission. A substantial body of research and the extensive experience of educational experts at other postsecondary institutions support the conclusion that the University’s holistic admissions policy is narrowly tailored to further a compelling interest in the educational benefits of diversity – benefits that extend to all students at the University.

Brief of the Sweatt Family in Fisher v. University of Texas

 

Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Louisville School District

In November 2004, The Civil Rights Project filed an Amicus Curiae brief in support of the Louisville School District. CRP’s brief focuses both on the social science research on the issue of the educational and social benefits of desegregation, and on the extensive record developed on the benefits of the Louisville plan in particular. The brief also argues that the Louisville plan is narrowly tailored and that the standards for considering narrow tailoring in the K-12 context should more carefully fit the realities of K-12 education.

Amicus Curiae Brief in Hancock v. Driscoll

In August 2004, The Civil Rights Project filed an amicus brief in support of the Hancock plaintiffs against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The brief highlighted our research depicting the confluence of racial isolation and high poverty in Massachusetts. We argued that under the Massachusetts constitution far too many students in high poverty districts, and especially minority students, are receiving an inadequate education.

Amicus Curiae Brief in Comfort v. Lynn School Committe

The Civil Rights Project filed a brief in June 2004 in support of the Lynn School Committee and state defendants in the case of Comfort v. Lynn School Committee, a challenge to the voluntary integration plan in Lynn, Massachusetts that is currently on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Amicus Curiae Briefs in University of Michigan Admissions Cases

AERA, AAHE and AAC&U filed amicus briefs, prepared on their behalf by Angelo Ancheta with assistance from other CRP staff. The briefs summarize the social science evidence bearing on the central constitutional questions of affirmative action before the Supreme Court.