THE SUPREME COURT ENDS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION
On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States (the “Court”) issued its decision in the twin cases of Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina (collectively, “Students for Fair Admissions, Inc.”). In a majority opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court found that Harvard College’s (“Harvard”) and the University of North Carolina’s (“UNC”) race-based admissions programs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (the “EP Clause”) of the United States Constitution. This decision ends the Court’s established, though always uneasy, acceptance of affirmative action in higher education and stands to dramatically alter college admissions across the country.
Attorney Felicia Vasudevan, a partner at Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane, LLP, received a favorable decision on behalf of her client, Marshfield Public Schools. The Plaintiff appealed the district court’s judgement that upheld a decision of the Massachusetts Bureau of Special Education Appeals (“BSEA”). However, as the notice was filed more than 30 days after entry, the First Circuit ultimately dismissed the appeal for being untimely. The Plaintiff also appealed the district court’s order, denying her motion to vacate. Read More
Following our Alert from March 16, 2023, Civility is Dead – The Supreme Court Rules Municipal Control of Public Speak Limited to Reasonable Time/Place/Manner Restrictions, which discussed the holding to the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Barron v. Kolenda and the Town of Southborough (SJC-13284), we promised to bring you more detailed guidance on developing a Public Speak policy for your public body or municipality. The Barron case involved a constitutional challenge to the Town of Southborough’s public comment policy, which attempted to impose a code of civility on members of the public who participated in public comment before public bodies. In Barron, the court interpreted the state constitution to mean that public bodies may request, but not require, that public commentators be respectful and courteous. Instead, a public body may set restrictions on reasonable time, place, and manner comments to ensure that the meeting retains an orderly and peaceable manner.