News Release
For Immediate Release
Contact: Terry Pell 202-833-8400, ext. 113
E-mail: <pell@cir-usa.org>
December 19, 2006

CIR to appeal order delaying Prop. 2

December 19, 2006 − by McGuire − in Press Releases − Comments Off

Washington, D.C. – Today, the Center for Individual Rights will file an motion requesting an emergency hearing on CIR’s motion to intervene in litigation challenging Prop. 2 to stay an order entered this morning delaying implementation of Prop. 2 until June 30, 2007.

Late yesterday, CIR filed a motion to intervene in BAMN et al. v. Granholm et al. now pending before before Federal District Court Judge David Lawson. CIR also filed a brief opposing the request filed on December 11 by three Michigan universities seeking a federal injunction delaying enforcement of Prop. 2 with respect to university admissions until the conclusion of the 2006-2007 admissions cycle.

CIR’s motion and brief were filed on behalf of Eric Russell, an individual now applying for admission to the University of Michigan Law School, and Toward a Fair Michigan a non-profit group seeking to ensure that Prop. 2 is fully and fairly implemented. Russell is the only proposed party in the litigation before Judge Lawson who has a personal interest in having Prop. 2 implemented by December 22, 2006, as explicitly provided by the language of Prop. 2.

Before considering Russell’s motion or opposition brief, Judge Lawson ruled on a stipulation entered into by the Michigan Attorney General and all other parties to the case to delay implementation of Prop. 2 until June 30, 2007. In his order issued this morning, Judge Lawson stated, “the interests of all parties and the public are represented adequately through the state defendants and their various elected representatives, and the Court, therefore, will approve the stipulation.”

CIR President Terence Pell commented, “Eric Russell vigorously disputes Judge Lawson’s conclusion that the interests of the people of Michigan were adequately represented by the Attorney General and other parties to the litigation when they arbitrarily agreed amongst themselves to delay implementation of Prop. 2.”

Pell added, “At the least, Russell has a right to be heard by Judge Lawson before he signs away his constitutional right and the right of all other individuals who are applying right now to Michigan universities to have their applications judged according to the terms enacted by Prop. 2.”

 

###

More about this case:



Print Friendly



Comments are closed.