US court denies white students' discrimination case

Reuters ^ | 10/03/05

[nypokerface]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court let stand on Monday a ruling that three unsuccessful white applicants cannot collect any damages from their lawsuit challenging the University of Washington Law School's use of race as a factor in admissions.

Without comment or recorded dissent, the justices declined to review a U.S. appeals court ruling that upheld as legal the policy in effect in the mid-1990s when Katuria Smith, Angela Rock and Michael Pyle applied and were rejected.

"The law school's narrowly tailored use of race and ethnicity in admissions decisions during 1994-96 furthered its compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body," the appeals court ruled.

The Supreme Court in a major ruling in 2003 upheld the use of racial preferences in university admission decisions and cited the benefits of a diverse student body. The court upheld the University of Michigan's affirmative action program that favors minorities who apply to its law school.

The appeals court cited the 2003 decision in the case involving the University of Washington law school.

Viet Dinh, a Georgetown University law professor and a former senior Justice Department official in the Bush administration, appealed to the Supreme Court on behalf of the three white students.

"This case is an excellent vehicle for developing the law in this area," Dinh said in the appeal. He said the law school had failed to consider "race-neutral alternatives."

Attorneys for the state urged the justices to reject the appeal. They said public colleges and universities should be given the time to develop and refine their admissions policies in view of what the Supreme Court decided in 2003.

The law school policy at issue in the case was ended after voters in 1998 approved an initiative that prohibited the state from considering gender or race in admissions, hiring or contracting.

The Supreme Court said it rejected the appeal in an order issued on the first day of its new term. The court rejected about 1,800 appeals that had piled up during their summer recess.

[gondramB]

Well thats a blow to equal protection and a disappointing first decision for the Roberts court.

[chimera]

Yet another example of a "justice" system gone mad, upholding a law clearly in violation of the principle of equal protection under the law. IOW, everyone is protected under the law, except when they're not. Where do you turn when the courts and judges are corrupt. Where do you go when the system of "justice" is bereft of justice? I guess we need to learn a lesson from history. When faced with such dilemmas, the patriots of old turned to their ammunition lockers. Could very well happen again if too many mainstream people feel marginalized by the "justice" system in this country.

[Mulch]

A swing and a miss by Roberts.

[sourcery]

The silver lining is that the Court, by simply declining to hear the case, created no additional repugnant precedents.

[Serb5150]

Ward Connerly for SCOTUS ping.

[R. Scott]

Haven’t we known for a long time that racial discriminations was legal – as long as the discriminated was not a racial minority or Asian?

[Patti_ORiley]

It is a question of monetary damages only at this point. The racist policy used by the law school are no longer in use. The plaintiffs would have had to prove that the school's actions cost the plaintiffs monetary or economic harm. If you are rejected due to a racist admissions policy, you sue to reverse that policy, but economic damages are something else. One might argue that the Plaintiffs would have made an income as lawyers upon graduation, but who says they would have graduated -- that's only a hypothetical. I don't think this was a bad day for the court.

[Pyro7480]

Did Roberts even participate in hearing the arguments and/or making the decision?

[cyborg]

How do they know they would have graduated from law school? Yet they sought damages? Either way, the school doesn't have the policy annymore according to the article.

[gondramB]

"Did Roberts even participate in hearing the arguments and/or making the decision?"

I havent been able to find out - you would think the media would be covering it more if it was his first vote.

[pabianice]

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Government protected racism, the law of the land.

[cyborg]

No it is not. All it says is that they couldn't collect money. If they sued to overturn the whole racial preferences situation and was turned down, THAT would be a blow to equal opportunity. All that happened was that they didn't get their money which happens to people everyday.

[HitmanLV]

What damage did they suffer?

How can money damages be fairly calculated?

I wouldn't take the case either.

[CSM]

That does it. Racism is now allowed. I just can't seem to keep up with our ever changing constitution.....

[gondramB]

"No it is not. All it says is that they couldn't collect money. If they sued to overturn the whole racial preferences situation and was turned down, THAT would be a blow to equal opportunity. All that happened was that they didn't get their money which happens to people everyday."

I see your point - that is a better way to look at it.

[untenured]

I havent been able to find out - you would think the media would be covering it more if it was his first vote.

This is from the article:

The Supreme Court said it rejected the appeal in an order issued on the first day of its new term. The court rejected about 1,800 appeals that had piled up during their summer recess.

One of the first orders of business for a new court term is to decide which cases to take, which IIRC requires four votes. (Someone else may know better about the number.) So presumably this is one of the first cases that didn't make the cut. Which would mean Justice Roberts participated, but we don't know whether he voted to hear the appeal or not.

[HitmanLV]

Thanks. Well said.

[Revolting cat!]

Wait 'till Harriet get there, she'll show 'em! Like Souter did!