Ally Coll

Volume 27.2 (download PDF)

Abstract

This term, in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, the Supreme Court invalidated Harvard and the University of North Carolina’s (“UNC”) race-conscious admissions programs as unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In a significant departure from past precedent, the Court concluded that Harvard and UNC’s programs “cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause.” In anticipation of and in the wake of this decision, individuals and organizations who oppose similar workplace diversity programs brought lawsuits challenging the legality of various corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) programs under a range of federal civil rights statutes. Lower courts considering these claims have thus far largely declined to adjudicate them on the merits, instead dismissing them for lack of Article III standing. While much attention has been placed on the implications of the Court’s substantive reasoning in Students for Fair Admissions for corporate DEI programs, this Article argues that the Court’s standing analysis this term, both in the affirmative action case and in other key decisions, is equally important to the outcome of pending challenges to such initiatives.

Continue reading →

Mohamed Akram Faizer

Volume 27.2 (download PDF)

Abstract

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to invalidate race-based admissions will problematically make it more difficult for underrepresented minorities’ to gain admission to elite colleges and universities. However, it offers an opportunity to finally address racial inequality in access to preschool and K-12 education, by removing the political cover that allowed elite credentialing to perpetuate social advantage and ignore distributional justice. To create a more inclusive admissions process, cultural competence experts should collaborate with civil society to develop policies that consider all perspectives. This approach, inspired by administrative law’s notice-and-comment framework, can help institutions prioritize factors like resilience over regressive metrics tied to socioeconomic status. In the long term, this shift could encourage elite schools to engage with marginalized communities to address the racial opportunity gap from the ground up. It might also challenge the country’s excessive focus on hyper-elite credentials as a pathway to success, and recognize that there are many highly capable students and graduates from less selective schools that merit consideration for prestigious jobs. This change could promote socioeconomic mobility and foster a more inclusive and equitable society.

Continue reading →

Salimah Khoja & Paulina Leyva Hernandez

Volume 27.2 (download PDF)

Abstract

In 2023 the Texas legislature passed Senate Bill 4 (“S.B. 4”), which empowers state and local law enforcement agencies to engage in immigration enforcement by arresting and deporting migrants who are suspected of crossing the southern border. Anti-immigrant state laws like Texas’s S.B. 4 and Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070 (“S.B. 1070”) were created to test the limits of state power and limit the reach of federal immigration enforcement within the states. Legal challenges to state laws like S.B. 4 and S.B. 1070 demonstrate the ongoing tension between federal and state governments related to authority over immigration matters, even though immigration has been within the federal government’s purview since the early days of the United States, as recognized by the judiciary for more than a century. This Note focuses on the immigration preemption doctrine and argues that the Supreme Court should declare S.B. 4 unconstitutional, while protecting states’ ability to continue creating humane, immigrant-inclusive policies without impermissibly disrupting the fabric of federal immigration enforcement actions.

Continue reading →

Katie Corwin

Volume 27.2 (download PDF)

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic played a crucial role in establishing the use of telehealth in all aspects of health care with one huge exception: abortion. Conservative politicians often do not categorize abortion as health care, leading to a stark contrast in the treatment of reproductive health care, particularly in terms of telehealth availability. This Comment examines state laws relating to telehealth abortion, how lawmakers restrict access to abortion by attacking telehealth abortion, and the resulting legal uncertainty for patients and practitioners. The central argument of this Comment is that legally protecting and expanding telehealth is imperative for increasing access to reproductive health care and abortion as well as improving public health.

Continue reading →