News & Analysis as of

Strict Scrutiny Standard

Supreme Court Decides Cooper v. Harris

by Faegre Baker Daniels on

On May 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Cooper v. Harris, No. 15-1262, holding that a three-judge district court panel did not err in concluding that race furnished the predominant rationale for North Carolina’s...more

Effective Date of Philadelphia Wage Equity Bill Put on Hold

As you may recall, late last year we discussed a new Philadelphia law that banned private-sector employers from asking job applicants about their wage and fringe benefits history. The Wage Equity Bill, which was aimed at...more

Weekly Update Newsletter - October 2016 #4

by PilieroMazza PLLC on

OTHER GOVERNMENT CONTRACTING NEWS - “Texas court places temporary halt on Fair Pay rule.” Federal News Radio. October 26, 2016. The Eastern District Court of Texas placed a preliminary injunction on Fair Pay and...more

Local Campaign Finance Reform: Can Local Agencies Wean the Baby From “Mother’s Milk?” (Part 1)

by Best Best & Krieger LLP on

It is an issue that has been with us since the earliest days of politics: The wealthy tend to have disproportionate influence over our political leaders in contrast to the poor and middle class. In the immortal words of the...more

Natasha Baker Breaks Down Fisher II on Law360

by Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP on

On June 23, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (Case No. 14–981)(Fisher II), ending nearly eight years of litigation involving UT’s use of race as a factor...more

What Employers With Affirmative Action Policies Need to Know About a Recent Supreme Court Decision

by Foley & Lardner LLP on

Many employers who have read about the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent affirmative action decision are wondering what impact, if any, the ruling will have on them. After all, the main issue in that case was the propriety of a...more

Unexpected Affirmative Action News: The U.S. Supreme Court Affirms that Universities and Colleges May Continue to Use Race as a...

by Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP on

On June 23, 2016, in Fisher v. University of Texas et al., (“Fisher II”), the United States Supreme Court voted 4-3 to uphold the limited use of race in college and university admissions. The result was somewhat surprising...more

Supreme Court Upholds University Affirmative Action Admissions Policy

by FordHarrison on

On June 23, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court held for the second time that race may be taken into account when public universities and colleges admit students. In a 4-3 decision (Justice Kagan recused herself based on her prior...more

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Race-Conscious Admissions Program

by Shipman & Goodwin LLP on

In a decision sending waves through the tertiary education community and beyond, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld—by a four to three vote—the University of Texas’ (the University) race-conscious admissions program as lawful...more

Supreme Court Upholds Consideration of Race in a College Admissions Program – What Does This Mean for Employer Diversity Efforts?

by Littler on

On June 23, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion for the second time in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, (Fisher II), a case that directly questioned whether race can be considered at all in college...more

High Court Finds UT Austin Race-Conscious Admissions Process Constitutional

by Jackson Lewis P.C. on

In a 4-3 decision on Thursday, June 23, 2016, the United States Supreme Court upheld the University of Texas’s (UT) race-conscious admissions program. The decision addressed only UT’s specific admissions policy in effect...more

Fisher, the Sequel: Supreme Court Upholds Public University’s Affirmative Action Program

On June 23, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the race-conscious admission program that a public university used for undergraduate admissions was lawful under the Equal Protection Clause of the...more

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Affirmative Action Program at University of Texas

On June 23, 2016, in its second time hearing Fisher v. University of Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the affirmative action admissions program at the University of Texas at Austin. The Court held that the program is...more

Supreme Court Upholds University of Texas Affirmative Action Admissions Policy

by Foley Hoag LLP on

The Supreme Court has rejected a challenge under the Equal Protection Clause to the University of Texas at Austin’s race-conscious admissions program in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (“Fisher II”). This...more

University’s Race-Conscious Admissions Program Upheld by Supreme Court

by Ballard Spahr LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court today affirmed the University of Texas at Austin's admissions program, which permits consideration of an applicant’s race as one of a number of factors in admissions decisions. Justice Kennedy authored...more

Supreme Court Decides Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

by Faegre Baker Daniels on

On June 20, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, No. 14-981, holding that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permits the University of Texas’ use of race-conscious...more

United States Supreme Court Upholds University of Texas Affirmative Action Policy

In a 4-3 decision released today, in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, the United States Supreme Court affirmed that the University’s race-conscious admissions policy meets strict judicial scrutiny and is lawful under...more

The Supreme Court - June 2016

by Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

The Supreme Court of the United States issued decisions in two cases on June 6, 2016: Simmons v. Himmelreich, No. 15-109: Respondent Walter Himmelreich, an inmate at a federal prison, brought two suits against prison...more

In re Tam Redux: The PTO seeks Certiorari

On April 20, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Federal Circuit seeking Supreme Court review of that Court’s decision in In re Tam, 117 USPQ2d 1001...more

Federal Circuit Rejects Disparaging Trademarks’ Ban on First Amendment Grounds

by Reed Smith on

A December ruling by the Federal Circuit emphasized the value of commercial speech through trademark registration, and the case may have implications for the Washington Redskins. The NFL team’s Super Bowl dreams may be over,...more

Settlement with an Activist Investor is not a Defensive Measure

A recent case decided by the Delaware Court of Chancery, In Re Ebix, Inc., held settlement with an activist investor, Barrington Capital Group, L.P. was not a defensive measure subject to scrutiny under Unocal. Ebix entered...more

Washington Redskins Haven’t Won Yet: Why the Constitutionality of Section 2(a) is Not Yet Final

What do Washington D.C.’s NFL team, the Redskins, and Mr. Tam’s rock band, The Slants, have in common? Both have enjoyed unexpected victories recently and both have been called “disparaging” by the Patent and Trademark Office...more

Trademark Wars: The First Amendment Strikes Back – Lanham Act’s Disparaging Trademark Registration Ban Struck Down as...

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, en banc, has ruled that Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act precluding “disparaging” trademark registrations is unconstitutional, rejecting the argument that trademark...more

In re Tam: Section 2(a) Unconstitutional Under The First Amendment

by Akerman LLP on

In a landmark First Amendment decision relating to the Lanham (Trademark) Act, the Federal Circuit, en banc, struck down § 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), the statutory provision barring registration of...more

Federal Circuit Strikes Down Federal Ban on Disparaging Marks as Unconstitutional

by Genova Burns LLC on

In a landmark ruling that departs from decades-old precedent, on December 22, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the Lanham Act’s prohibition of “disparaging marks” violates the First...more

52 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 3
Cybersecurity

"My best business intelligence,
in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.
Feedback? Tell us what you think of the new jdsupra.com!