Case Status: Partial Win: The Supreme Court struck down the UM undergraduate admissions system but upheld the law school system.

Gratz & Grutter: Who Were Gratz and Grutter?

Both Gratz  and Grutter were class action lawsuits.  That is, CIR represented the class of all applicants who had been refused admissions on the basis of Michigan’s use of illegal racial preferences.  In addition, CIR represented three…

Case Status: Partial Win: The Supreme Court struck down the UM undergraduate admissions system but upheld the law school system.

Gratz & Grutter: Michigan Civil Rights Initiative

Jennifer Gratz Following the lead of states such as California, Florida and Washington, which have elected to eliminate all consideration of race in government contracting, hiring, and state-supported education, Michigan voters passed a ballot initiative…

Case Status: Partial Win: The Supreme Court struck down the UM undergraduate admissions system but upheld the law school system.

Gratz & Grutter: Consequences and Commentary

Taken as a whole, the two decisions may signify the Court’s view that racial preferences are a temporary social expedient that cannot be permanently justified on the basis of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

Case Status: Victory

U.S. v. Elonis

CIR filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court in the case Elonis v. United States. The petitioner, Anthony Elonis, is appealing his federal conviction for posting rap lyrics on his Facebook page that his…

Case Status: Case settled on favorable terms

Swanigan v. University of Connecticut

CIR is representing Pamela Swanigan, a graduate student in English at UConn. The suit alleges that Swanigan was not allowed to compete for a highly prestigious, merit-based scholarship despite being the top applicant the year…

Case Status: Partial Win: The Supreme Court struck down the UM undergraduate admissions system but upheld the law school system.

Gratz & Grutter: The Rulings

Unfortunately, Gratz and Grutter failed to clarify the law concerning racial preferences. Underlying nearly fifty years of constitutional jurisprudence had been the idea that racial distinctions are inherently irrational and politically dangerous. For this reason, the Court rarely approved…

Case Status: Partial Win: The Supreme Court struck down the UM undergraduate admissions system but upheld the law school system.

Gratz & Grutter: Law School Preferences

The Law School Admissions System Challenged in Grutter Like the undergraduate system the University of Michigan Law School system was (and is) carefully designed to achieve a predetermined racial mix of students. Indeed, the disparities between minority…

Case Status: Partial Win: The Supreme Court struck down the UM undergraduate admissions system but upheld the law school system.

Gratz & Grutter: Undergrad Preferences

The Mechanics of Race at the University of Michigan Admissions Grid There were two separate admissions policies at stake in the Michigan cases: the UM’s undergraduate admissions system (Gratz) and the UM’s law school admissions…

Case Status: Partial Win: The Supreme Court struck down the UM undergraduate admissions system but upheld the law school system.

Gratz & Grutter: What Was the Dispute?

“Diversity” or quotas? At issue in Gratz and Grutter were two contentions by the University of Michigan: first, that racial diversity is a compelling state interest that justifies an exception to the 14th Amendment and, second, that dual admissions…

Case Status: Victory

Burke v. Doe

CIR is representing an anonymous Wikipedia editor in a precedent-seeting case designed to establish the First Amendment right of anonymous internet authors to remain anonymous...

Case Status: Victory. Summary Judgment granted by US District Court.

New York P3 v. Walsh: If we win...

New York Counties New York P3 v. Walsh challenges an unconstitutional New York state law.  If we win, New York will no longer have the authority to restrict contributions to independent expenditure committees.  In addition, a…

Case Status: Victory. Summary Judgment granted by US District Court.

New York P3 v. Walsh: Why a PAC?

One might wonder why a super PAC has First Amendment rights that trump state regulation of campaign contributions.  After all, a wealthy individual can make a contribution to a PAC that he knows will be…

Case Status: Victory. Summary Judgment granted by US District Court.

New York P3 v. Walsh: Why New York?

New York is one of the few states that continues to regulate contributions to independent campaign committees despite Supreme Court decisions that make clear that so long as an entity is expressing its views independent…

Case Status: Victory. Summary Judgment granted by US District Court.

New York Progress and Protection PAC v. Walsh

CIR represented the New York Progress and Protection PAC ("NYP3"), an independent campaign committee formed to run television, radio, and print advertisements on behalf of conservative political candidates in New York State. NYP3 was blocked…

Case Status: Dismissed. Dismissal affirmed by an equally divided Supreme Court.

Friedrichs v. CTA: Chronology

June 27, 2018VICTORY: SUPREME COURT ENDS COMPELLED UNION DUESToday, the Supreme Court ended compelled union dues and restored First Amendment rights to thousands of public employees across the country.SUPREME COURT DENIES FRIEDRICHS…

Case Status: Dismissed. Dismissal affirmed by an equally divided Supreme Court.

Friedrichs v. CTA: Who are the lawyers?

Lead Counsel Michael Carvin Michael Carvin served as lead counsel of Friedrichs v. CTA. Mr. Carvin is a partner at Jones Day. Carvin is a founding board member of CIR and has worked closely with…

Case Status: Dismissed. Dismissal affirmed by an equally divided Supreme Court.

Friedrichs v. CTA: What Do Unions Say?

Union defenders claim that compulsory dues are necessary to prevent individual employees from obtaining the benefits of union membership without paying for them — called “free riding.” Who is the free rider? The union assumes…

Case Status: Dismissed. Dismissal affirmed by an equally divided Supreme Court.

Friedrichs v. CTA: Why Now?

For years, the Supreme Court has allowed compulsory union dues by treating them as an exception to the guarantee of freedom of association.  Generally, the Court has reasoned that compulsory union membership is necessary to…

Case Status: Dismissed. Dismissal affirmed by an equally divided Supreme Court.

Friedrichs v. CTA: Why the Courts?

This lawsuit is about the right of teachers and other public employees to decide for themselves whether to join and support a union.  Unfortunately, the courts are the primary institutional roadblock to individual…