http://www.oyez.org/tags/rehnquist_invidious_discrimination/ U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) en-us http://www.oyez.org/images/oyezfeed.jpg U.S. Supreme Court Audio Recordings, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) Tue, 17 Jan 1995 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Adarand, a contractor specializing in highway guardrail work, submitted the lowest bid as a subcontractor for part of a project funded by the United States Department of Transportation. Under the terms of the federal contract, the prime contractor would receive additional compensation if it hired small businesses controlled by "socially and economically disadvantaged individuals." [The clause declared that "the contractor shall presume that socially and economically disadvantaged individuals include Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian Pacific Americans, and other minorities...." Federal law requires such a subcontracting clause in most federal agency contracts]. Another subcontractor, Gonzales Construction Company, was awarded the work. It was certified as a minority business; Adarand was not. The prime contractor would have accepted Adarand's bid had it not been for the additional payment for hiring Gonzales.</p> <p>Is the presumption of disadvantage based on race alone, and consequent allocation of favored treatment, a discriminatory practice that violates the equal protection principle embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment?</p> 93-1841_19950117-argument-part01 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1841/argument/ William Perry Pendley supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 17 Jan 1995 12:00:00 -0500 Oral Argument, continued. Oral Argument, continued. 93-1841_19950117-argument-part02 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1841/argument/ Drew S. Days III supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 17 Jan 1995 12:00:00 -0500 Oral Argument, continued. Oral Argument, continued. 93-1841_19950117-argument-part03 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1841/argument/ William Perry Pendley supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 01 Apr 2003 12:00:00 -0500 <p>In 1995, Jennifer Gratz applied to the University of Michigan's College of Literature, Science and the Arts with an adjusted GPA of 3.8 and ACT score of 25. In 1997, Patrick Hamacher applied to the University with an adjusted GPA of 3.0, and an ACT score of 28. Both were denied admission and attended other schools. The University admits that it uses race as a factor in making admissions decisions because it serves a "compelling interest in achieving diversity among its student body." In addition, the University has a policy to admit virtually all qualified applicants who are members of one of three select racial minority groups - African Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans - that are considered to be "underrepresented" on the campus. Concluding that diversity was a compelling interest, the District Court held that the admissions policies for years 1995-1998 were not narrowly tailored, but that the policies in effect in 1999 and 2000 were narrowly tailored. After the decision in Grutter, Gratz and Hamacher petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 11 for a writ of certiorari before judgment, which was granted.</p> <p>Does the University of Michigan's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?</p> 02-516_20030401-argument-part01 http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_516/argument/ Mr. Kirk O. Kolbo supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 01 Apr 2003 12:00:00 -0500 Oral Argument, continued. Oral Argument, continued. 02-516_20030401-argument-part02 http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_516/argument/ General Theodore B. Olson supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 01 Apr 2003 12:00:00 -0500 Oral Argument, continued. Oral Argument, continued. 02-516_20030401-argument-part03 http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_516/argument/ supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 01 Apr 2003 12:00:00 -0500 Oral Argument, continued. Oral Argument, continued. 02-516_20030401-argument-part04 http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_516/argument/ Mr. Kirk O. Kolbo supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 01 Apr 2003 12:00:00 -0500 <p>In 1997, Barbara Grutter, a white resident of Michigan, applied for admission to the University of Michigan Law School. Grutter applied with a 3.8 undergraduate GPA and an LSAT score of 161. She was denied admission. The Law School admits that it uses race as a factor in making admissions decisions because it serves a "compelling interest in achieving diversity among its student body." The District Court concluded that the Law School's stated interest in achieving diversity in the student body was not a compelling one and enjoined its use of race in the admissions process. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that Justice Powell's opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), constituted a binding precedent establishing diversity as a compelling governmental interest sufficient under strict scrutiny review to justify the use of racial preferences in admissions. The appellate court also rejected the district court's finding that the Law School's "critical mass" was the functional equivalent of a quota.</p> <p>Does the University of Michigan Law School's use of racial preferences in student admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?</p> 02-241_20030401-argument-part01 http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_241/argument/ Mr. Kirk O. Kolbo supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 01 Apr 2003 12:00:00 -0500 Oral Argument, continued. Oral Argument, continued. 02-241_20030401-argument-part02 http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_241/argument/ General Theodore B. Olson supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 01 Apr 2003 12:00:00 -0500 Oral Argument, continued. Oral Argument, continued. 02-241_20030401-argument-part03 http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_241/argument/ Maureen E. Mahoney supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 01 Apr 2003 12:00:00 -0500 Oral Argument, continued. Oral Argument, continued. 02-241_20030401-argument-part04 http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_02_241/argument/ Mr. Kirk O. Kolbo supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 10 Oct 1995 12:00:00 -0500 <p>Colorado voters adopted Amendment 2 to their State Constitution precluding any judicial, legislative, or executive action designed to protect persons from discrimination based on their "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships." Following a legal challenge by homosexual and other aggrieved parties, the state trial court entered a permanent injunction enjoining Amendment 2's enforcement. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed on appeal.</p> <p>Does Amendment 2 of Colorado's State Constitution, forbidding the extension of official protections to those who suffer discrimination due to their sexual orientation, violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?</p> 94-1039_19951010-argument-part01 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_1039/argument/ Timothy M. Tymkovich supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 10 Oct 1995 12:00:00 -0500 Oral Argument, continued. Oral Argument, continued. 94-1039_19951010-argument-part02 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_1039/argument/ Jean E. Dubofsky supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 10 Oct 1995 12:00:00 -0500 Oral Argument, continued. Oral Argument, continued. 94-1039_19951010-argument-part03 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_1039/argument/ Timothy M. Tymkovich supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 11 Jan 2000 12:00:00 -0500 <p>In 1994, while enrolled at Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Virginia Tech), Christy Brzonkala alleged that Antonio Morrison and James Crawford, both students and varsity football players at Virginia Tech, raped her. In 1995, Brzonkala filed a complaint against Morrison and Crawford under Virginia Tech's Sexual Assault Policy. After a hearing, Morrison was found guilty of sexual assault and sentenced to immediate suspension for two semesters. Crawford was not punished. A second hearing again found Morrison guilty. After an appeal through the university's administrative system, Morrison's punishment was set aside, as it was found to be "excessive." Ultimately, Brzonkala dropped out of the university. Brzonkala then sued Morrison, Crawford, and Virginia Tech in Federal District Court, alleging that Morrison's and Crawford's attack violated 42 USC section 13981, part of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA), which provides a federal civil remedy for the victims of gender-motivated violence. Morrison and Crawford moved to dismiss Brzonkala's suit on the ground that section 13981's civil remedy was unconstitutional. In dismissing the complaint, the District Court found that that Congress lacked authority to enact section 13981 under either the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment, which Congress had explicitly identified as the sources of federal authority for it. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals affirmed.</p> <p>Does Congress have the authority to enact the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 under either the Commerce Clause or Fourteenth Amendment?</p> 99-5_20000111-argument-part01 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_99_5/argument/ Julie Goldscheid supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 11 Jan 2000 12:00:00 -0500 Oral Argument, continued. Oral Argument, continued. 99-5_20000111-argument-part02 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_99_5/argument/ Seth P. Waxman supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Tue, 11 Jan 2000 12:00:00 -0500 Oral Argument, continued. Oral Argument, continued. 99-5_20000111-argument-part03 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_99_5/argument/ Michael E. Rosman supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 17 Jan 1996 12:00:00 -0500 <p>The Virginia Military Institute (VMI) boasted a long and proud tradition as Virginia's only exclusively male public undergraduate higher learning institution. The United States brought suit against Virginia and VMI alleging that the school's male-only admissions policy was unconstitutional insofar as it violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. On appeal from a District Court ruling favoring VMI, the Fourth Circuit reversed. It found VMI's admissions policy to be unconstitutional. Virginia, in response to the Fourth Circuit's reversal, proposed to create the Virginia Women's Institute for Leadership (VWIL) as a parallel program for women. On appeal from the District Court's affirmation of the plan, the Fourth Circuit ruled that despite the difference in prestige between the VMI and VWIL, the two programs would offer "substantively comparable" educational benefits. The United States appealed to the Supreme Court.</p> <p>Does Virginia's creation of a women's-only academy, as a comparable program to a male-only academy, satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?</p> 94-1941_19960117-argument-part01 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_1941/argument/ Paul Bender supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 17 Jan 1996 12:00:00 -0500 Oral Argument, continued. Oral Argument, continued. 94-1941_19960117-argument-part02 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_1941/argument/ Theodore B. Olson supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist Wed, 17 Jan 1996 12:00:00 -0500 Oral Argument, continued. Oral Argument, continued. 94-1941_19960117-argument-part03 http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_94_1941/argument/ Paul Bender supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist