|
Home
> News>
CIR's greatest courtroom
victories
Hopwood v. State of Texas
78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996), cert denied, 518 U.S.
1033 (1996)
CIR successfully represented applicants to the University
of Texas Law School who had been denied admission under a school program
that granted substantial racial preferences to members of preferred minority
groups. In March, 1996, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that "diversity"
is not a sufficiently compelling state interest to support race preferences
in student admissions and that the law school had failed to identify any
effects of past discrimination that would justify such preferences. The
U.S. Supreme Court subsequently denied certiorari.
Hopwood constitutes the first successful legal challenge to racial
preferences in student admissions since the U.S. Supreme Court's 1978
decision in Board of Regents v. Bakke. It is widely regarded as
the single most important civil rights case of the 1990s.
Although CIR's clients prevailed on the question of whether UT's admissions
system was unconstitutional, the question of whether they are entitled
to damages is still pending.
Co-Counsel: Theodore B. Olson, Douglas R. Cox, Walter "Skip"
Scott (Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher); Terral Smith, Esq.
View the case files
Reno v. Bossier Parish School District
528 U.S. 320 (2000)
CIR successfully challenged a U.S. Department of Justice
effort to force state and local governments to gerrymander election districts
in order to maximize the election of minority representatives.
By a 7-2 majority, the Court held that the Federal government may not
deny pre-clearance solely because a new voting plan fails to maximize
the number of minority voting districts. Instead, it may block a proposed
voting plan only if it manifests a discriminatory intent to "retrogress."
In practice, this means that so long as a new districting plan maintains
the existing number of minority voting districts, it will receive pre-clearance.
Co-Counsel: Michael A. Carvin (Cooper, Carvin & Rosenthal).
View the case files
United States v. Morrison
120 S. Ct. 1740 (2000)
CIR defended black student athletes against false allegations
of sexual assault. These charges were made against the accused under the
1994 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). CIR argued that the Act, which
creates a federal tort remedy for gender-motivated violence, exceeded
congressional authority under the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment
and that state laws were fully adequate to prosecute sexual crimes or
civil torts.
Morrison was the first federal case to test the constitutionality
of VAWA. In July 1996, U.S. District Judge Jackson Kiser held that Congress
lacked the authority to enact VAWA's tort remedy. The U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit agreed and in June, 1999, the plaintiff petitioned
the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.
The High Court upheld the earlier rulings in a 5-4 decision, striking
down the offending provision of VAWA. This case is considered one of the
greatest victories for federalism in decades.
Co-counsel: W. David Paxton, M. Christina Floyd (Gentry, Locke, Rakes
& Moore).
View the case files
Lamprecht v. Federal Communications
Commission
958 F.2d 382 (D.C. Cir. 1992)
CIR successfully represented a male applicant for a radio
broadcast license in a constitutional challenge to the FCC's gender preference
program, which allowed women to receive a "gender credit" in
comparative license proceedings. In an opinion written by then-Judge Clarence
Thomas, the D.C. Circuit found the FCC's preference program unconstitutional.
Lamprecht was the first federal court ruling to declare a federal
affirmative action program unconstitutional. To this day, it remains the
only such decision.
Co-Counsel: Michael A. Carvin (Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge).
View the case files
Rosenberger v. University
of Virginia
515 U.S. 819 (1995)
CIR successfully represented the publishers of a religious
student magazine at the University of Virginia. By a vote of 5-4, the
U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the University violated the students' First
Amendment rights by excluding them from an otherwise neutral funding scheme
solely because of the magazine's religious viewpoint.
Rosenberger has substantially enhanced constitutional protection
for religious groups against government discrimination. It establishes
that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment forbids, and that the
Establishment Clause does not require, anti-religious discrimination in
the administration of government funding schemes.
Co-Counsel: Michael W. McConnell, Alan Untereiner (Mayer, Brown &
Platt); James R. Murray, Jackson R. Sharman III (Covington & Burling).
Silva v. Univ. of New Hampshire
888 F.Supp. 293 (D.N.H. 1994)
In this widely publicized case, CIR contested the suspension
of a tenured professor over two in-class remarks of a mild sexual content,
which, according to the university, created a "hostile and offensive
environment." On the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction,
the district court ordered the professor's immediate reinstatement and,
in an unprecedented ruling, found that University administrators could
be held personally liable for their actions. Subsequently, the University
reinstated the professor permanently and paid substantial damages and
fees to settle the case.
Silva is considered the first case to address the conflict between
free speech and sexual harassment at a university. The district court's
opinion provides a firm defense of academic freedom against overly expansive
harassment regulations.
Co-counsel: Paul McEachern (Shaines & McEachern)
Levin v. Harleston
966 F.2d 85 (2nd Cir. 1992)
CIR successfully represented a tenured philosophy professor
at the City College of New York in a First Amendment lawsuit challenging
CCNY's efforts to discipline him and to revoke his tenure for controversial
views he had expressed in several articles.
Observing that Levin raised "serious constitutional questions
that go to the heart of the current national debate on... political correctness,"
the district court found that CCNY had violated the plaintiff's First
Amendment rights. The court's ruling, which was upheld on appeal, substantially
strengthened established principles of academic freedom and freedom of
speech.
Co-Counsel: Scott M Univer, Esq.
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul
505 U.S. 377 (1992)
CIR in an amicus brief successfully urged the U.S.
Supreme Court to strike down a city ordinance aimed at the selective suppression
of politically disfavored "hate speech." The Supreme Court held
that the state must remain strictly viewpoint-neutral even when regulating
speech that otherwise enjoys no constitutional protection, such as "fighting
words."
The decision--heralded by The New Republic as "an ingenious extension
of the First Amdendment...suggested by the Center for Individual Rights"--led
to the invalidation of dozens of college and university speech codes.
Co-Counsel: Gary B. Born, Stuart P. Green, Robert F. Hoyt, Thomas M.
Clarke (Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering).
Sigma Chi v. George Mason Univ.
993 F.2d 386 (4th Cir. 1993)
CIR successfully represented members of a fraternity in
a First Amendment lawsuit seeking to invalidate the University's disciplinary
measures against the fraternity for having staged an offensive fundraising
skit. Following CIR victories in district and appellate courts, GMU revoked
the sanctions against the fraternity and settled the case.
Sigma Chi is a leading appellate precedent in favor of expansive
speech protection for free speech on campus.
Co-Counsel: Victor M. Glasberg, Esq. (American Civil Liberties Union,
Virginia).
Coalition for Economic
Equity v. Wilson
122 F.3d 692 (9th Cir.), cert. denied 522 U.S. 963
(1997)
CIR successfully represented sponsors of the California
Civil Rights Initiative ("Prop. 209"), a state constitutional
amendment that bans discriminiation on the basis of race and sex. Following
the voters' approval of the Initiative in November, 1996, a coalition
of liberal groups, supported by the U.S. Department of Justice, brought
suit to have the law nullified. A panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals reversed the trial judge's ruling and held that Prop. 209 was
clearly constitutional. In November, 1997, the U.S. Supreme Court declined
to review that decision.
Co-Counsel: Michael A. Carvin, David H. Thompson (Cooper, Carvin &
Rosenthal); Manuel S. Klausner, Esq.
 Last
revised: 02-Nov-2004
|
