SG Briefs in K-12 Race-Conscious Admissions Cases
on Aug 23, 2006 at 11:42 am
The Solicitor General has filed briefs on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae supporting the petitioners in both of the Equal Protection Clause cases pending before the Court. The SG argues that the Court should invalidate the race-conscious plans of both the Seattle School District No. 1 (in No. 05-908) and the Jefferson County (Kentucky) Public Schools (in No. 05-915).
On first glance, it does not appear that the SG addresses the question presented by petitioners in the Kentucky case of whether the Court should overrule Grutter. The briefs appear to presume that Grutter is the governing law, and attempt to distinguish the two pending cases from that University of Michigan decision. [Correction: Thanks to commentor Michael Yuri for pointing out that the Meredith petititioners are not actually asking the Court (not in their petition, anyway) to consider whether to overrule Grutter. Their awkwardly phrased Question Presented (“Should Grutter, Bakke and Gratz be overturned and/or misapplied by the Respondent?”) led me astray. Their argument, instead, is that “the trial court” purportedly “has overturned and/or misapplied” those cases, including Grutter. At least one topside amicus brief does ask the Court to overrule Grutter, but that is not one of the questions formally presented in the petitions.]
If I have time to review the briefs more carefully in the next few days, perhaps I’ll post more on the arguments therein (and perhaps Lyle and other bloggers will, too). In the meantime, please provide any reactions in the comments section.
