January, 24 2022, 11:15am EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Lacy Crawford, Jr , Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, lcrawford@lawyerscommittee.org
Andrea Dreier, North Carolina Justice Center, andrea@ncjustice.org
Michelle Boykins, Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC), mboykins@advancingjustice-
The Law and Facts are Clear: Race-Conscious Admissions is Meaningful, Necessary and Constitutional
Supreme Court Grants Review of Harvard and UNC- Chapel Hill Affirmative Action Policies
WASHINGTON
The U.S. Supreme Court has granted review of two federal court decisions upholding race-conscious admissions policies at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill (UNC). The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law represents a racially diverse group of students and alumni from both universities who helped defend the policies in the two separate cases filed by the anti-affirmative action group, Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA). Co-counsel in the UNC case includes the North Carolina Justice Center and the law firm of Relman & Colfax. Co-counsel in the Harvard case include Asian Americans Advancing Justice - AAJC, Lawyers for Civil Rights in Boston and Arnold & Porter. The following are statements from groups involved with the case:
Damon Hewitt, president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee: "Selective universities like Harvard and UNC-Chapel Hill have long struggled to admit students of color, who have over time been excluded for access to elite institutions and are historically marginalized. Race-conscious admissions policies are a critical tool that ensures students of color are not overlooked in a process that does not typically value their determination, accomplishments, and immense talents. We will vigorously defend access and opportunity in higher education alongside a diverse coalition of students of color, including our incredible clients whose testimony about their experiences on campus served as the cornerstone for the lower courts' favorable decisions in both of these cases."
David Hinojosa, director of the Educational Opportunities Project at the Lawyers' Committee: "The underlying legal precedent is settled and clear. While we believe the Supreme Court should not have granted review in either case, it must again uphold the lawfulness of race-conscious admissions. As America becomes increasingly diverse, our nation can ill-afford to upend 40 years of efforts to improving racial diversity in the classroom and on campus. "
Rick Glazier, executive director of the North Carolina Justice Center: "In taking this case for review, the Supreme Court must follow established precedent and not upend over 50 years of affirmative action in higher education. Judge Biggs' ruling rightly affirmed UNC's race-conscious admissions policy that promotes diversity, enriching the educational environment for all its students. As North Carolina's flagship school, UNC has a duty to educate and prepare new generations of North Carolina leaders to serve in an increasingly multi-ethnic society, as well as a responsibility to counteract the present-day effects of the school's history of state-sponsored segregation and racial discrimination."
Niyati Shah, Director of Litigation, Asian Americans Advancing Justice - AAJC: "The reality is that race continues to unfairly limit educational opportunities for students of color. Race-conscious admission policies provide the chance for the student to tell their whole story, inclusive of their race, ethnicity, and lived experiences, in addition to their academic achievements. Asian Americans are being used as a wedge in these cases to try to dismantle race-conscious admissions policies, but the fact is seventy percent of Asian Americans support affirmative action. Our students deserve to have race-conscious admissions policies remain the law of the land."
Background:
The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, North Carolina Justice Center and Relman & Colfax represent a diverse group of Black and Latinx students and alumni who intervened in the UNC case to help defend UNC's admissions policy. Black and Latinx students are among the student groups who remain underrepresented and have been historically marginalized on UNC's campus. In November of 2020, the federal district court in the Middle District of North Carolina held a two-week trial on the lawfulness of UNC's admissions policy where eight students and alumni testified for intervenors on the benefits of increased diversity and the continuing challenges they experience at UNC given its sordid history of discrimination. The federal district court issued its 155-page ruling upholding UNC's policy in October of 2021. SFFA appealed the ruling to the Fourth Circuit but also asked the Supreme Court to directly review the case.
The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Asian Americans Advancing Justice -AAJC, Lawyers for Civil Rights, and Arnold & Porter represent a multiracial group of Black, Asian American and Latinx students and alumni who participated as amici at trial and on appeal to help defend Harvard's admissions policy. Four student amici testified at trial in 2018 and the federal district court issued its ruling upholding Harvard's policy in September of 2019, citing student testimony and evidence. Counsel for amici also presented oral argument alongside Harvard's counsel before the First Circuit Court of Appeals in a successful defense of race-conscious admissions on appeal. SFFA then filed its petition for certiorari.
In both cases, SFFA asks the Supreme Court to not only reverse the lower court opinions on the merits, but also asks the Court to prohibit race-conscious admissions altogether. More than 40 years ago, the Supreme Court in UC Regents v. Bakke first recognized a university's compelling interest in student body diversity. The Court has repeatedly affirmed the constitutionality of race-conscious admissions since the Bakke ruling in 1978.
The Lawyers' Committee also represents student intervenors and student and civil rights organizations helping to defend against SFFA's challenge to UT-Austin's race-conscious admissions program with Hunton Andrews Kurth. That case was dismissed by the federal district court and is now pending before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Lawyers' Committee is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to enlist the private bar's leadership and resources in combating racial discrimination and the resulting inequality of opportunity - work that continues to be vital today.
(202) 662-8600LATEST NEWS
Unions Cheer After Judge Halts Trump Order on Federal Workers' Collective Bargaining Rights
"Today's court order is a victory for federal employees, their union rights, and the American people they serve," said the head of the National Treasury Employees Union.
Apr 25, 2025
Labor unions representing federal workers celebrated on Friday after a U.S. district judge blocked President Donald Trump's March executive order intended to strip the collective bargaining rights from hundreds of thousands of government employees.
The National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) swiftly took action over what union national president Doreen Greenwald called "an attempt to silence the voices of our nation's public servants," filing a lawsuit in in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia.
Judge Paul Friedman, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, granted a preliminary injunction on Friday, blocking implementation of the executive order (EO), which aimed to restrict workers' rights under the guise of protecting national security.
CNNreported that during a Wednesday hearing, Friedman questioned "Trump's motive in issuing the order" and "the administration's contention that certain agencies have national security as their primary function, citing the National Institutes of Health, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and Department of Agriculture."
Also reporting on the hearing earlier this week, Politicodetailed:
Attorneys representing the NTEU mentioned that the Trump administration, after issuing the EO, immediately sued an NTEU-affiliate union in Kentucky and Texas—federal districts dominated by Republican appointees.
Shortly after Friedman's hearing Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Danny Reeves, who is hearing the government's case in Kentucky, denied a request from a local NTEU chapter to postpone oral arguments that are scheduled for Friday. Reeves is an appointee of President George W. Bush. A decision in those cases could affect the NTEU's lawsuit before Friedman.
Still, the NTEU welcomed Freidman's Friday decision to halt what it called an "anti-union, anti-federal employee executive order" while also preparing for the Trump administration to "quickly appeal."
"Today's court order is a victory for federal employees, their union rights, and the American people they serve," said Greenwald. "The preliminary injunction granted at NTEU's request means the collective bargaining rights of federal employees will remain intact and the administration's illegal agenda to sideline the voices of federal employees and dismantle unions is blocked."
"NTEU will continue to use every tool available to protect federal employees and the valuable services they provide from these hostile attacks on their jobs, their agencies, and their legally protected rights to organize," she pledged.
The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the nation's largest federal workers union, also applauded Friday's news.
"AFGE congratulates our union siblings at NTEU on their important victory in the D.C. District Court today," said national president Everett Kelley. "This ruling is a major step toward restoring the collective bargaining rights that federal employees are guaranteed under the law."
Kelley added that "AFGE looks forward to arguing our own case against this unlawful executive order in federal court. We are confident that, together, these efforts will secure the full relief federal employees deserve—and send a clear message that no administration is above the law."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders Says Trump Arrest of Wisconsin Judge Is About One Thing Only: 'Unchecked Power'
"Let's be clear. Trump's arrest of Judge Dugan in Milwaukee has nothing to do with immigration. It has everything to do with his moving this country toward authoritarianism."
Apr 25, 2025
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders led congressional progressives on Friday in condemning the Trump administration's arrest of a county judge in Wisconsin for allegedly helping an undocumented man evade capture by federal immigration agents.
FBI agents arrested 65-year-old Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan, who faces felony charges of obstruction and concealing an individual, whom she is accused of giving refuge in her chambers as federal officers sought to arrest him.
In a statement accusing President Donald Trump of "illegally usurping congressional powers," Sanders (I-Vt.) said: "Let's be clear. Trump's arrest of Judge Dugan in Milwaukee has nothing to do with immigration. It has everything to do with his moving this country toward authoritarianism."
"Trump continues to demonstrate that he does not believe in the Constitution, the separation of powers, or the rule of law."
"He is suing media that he dislikes. He is attacking universities whose policies he disagrees with. He is intimidating major law firms who have opposed him," Sanders continued. "He is ignoring a 9-0 Supreme Court decision to bring Kilmar Abrego García back from El Salvador, where he was illegally sent. He is threatening to impeach judges who rule against him."
"Trump's latest attack on the judiciary and Judge Dugan is about one thing—unchecked power," the senator asserted. "He will attack and undermine any institution that stands in his way. Trump continues to demonstrate that he does not believe in the Constitution, the separation of powers, or the rule of law. He simply wants more and more power for himself."
"It is time for my colleagues in the Republican Party who believe in the Constitution to stand up to his growing authoritarianism," Sanders added.
Other progressive lawmakers also condemned Dugan's arrest, with Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) calling this "a red alert moment" that we "all must rise against."
Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) said on the social media site X: "Judge Dugan's arrest is outrageous and a fear tactic to our independent judiciary. Trump has always thought he was above the law, but now he's enabling his goons to push that limit as far as it can go. His reckless deportations and flaunting of the Constitution will fail."
Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.)
said on social media that "arresting judges is the kind of crackdown you see in a police state."
"This is how dictators take power," Lee warned. "They manufacture crises, undermine our institutions, and erode our checks and balances. If they'll come for one, they'll come for all."
Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) said that "Trump's playbook is simple: punish anyone who stands in his way."
"This ain't law and order—it's a rise of authoritarianism in real time," she added.
The FBI arrested a Wisconsin judge who stood up for due process for immigrants. This is unprecedented. All of us need to stand up and speak out against arresting judges in this country. We are living in dangerous times.
[image or embed]
— Rep. Ro Khanna ( @khanna.house.gov) April 25, 2025 at 11:07 AM
Accusing the Trump administration of a "shocking" willingness to "weaponize federal law enforcement," Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) contended that the FBI "coming into a community and arresting a judge is a serious matter" that would require a "high legal bar."
Moore added, "I am very alarmed at this increasingly lawless action of the Trump administration," including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which has "been defying courts and acting with disregard for the Constitution."
Advocacy groups including Voces de la Frontera, Milwaukee Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression (MAARPR), and Milwaukee Turners led a Friday afternoon protest against Dugan's arrest outside the Milwaukee County Courthouse.
HAPPENING NOW: A HUGE crowd of protesters have gathered outside a Milwaukee courthouse to support Judge Hannah Dugan after her arrest earlier today
[image or embed]
— Marco Foster ( @marcofoster.bsky.social) April 25, 2025 at 1:46 PM
"To refer to this heinous attack as alarming would be an understatement," MAARPR said in a statement accusing FBI Director Kash Patel of "intentionally being public with his announcement and accusations" and "seeking to bypass Dugan's due process and label her as a criminal before she even has an opportunity to speak up."
"It's no coincidence that Patel and the FBI have acted this way when the agency has a long history of bypassing any due process," the group said. "They are seeking to send a clear message: Either you play along with Trump's agenda, or pay the consequences."
MAARPR continued:
During this period of racist and political repression, we must stand together to denounce today's actions by the FBI. What happened to Dugan is not new. The FBI and other agencies have been emboldened in recent months, snatching people off the streets, separating families, terrorizing communities, breaking doors down of pro-Palestine activists, and contributing to the unjust deportation of immigrants who don't have criminal records. What is new is that they have gone after a judge.
"The conditions we face are scary, but it will be the people united who can put an end to this terror by the FBI, ICE, and all other agencies committing such acts of injustice," the group added. "The people united will stand against Trump and his agenda."
Keep ReadingShow Less
GOP Wants $27 Billion for Trump's Golden Dome 'Fantasy' While Working to Gut Working-Class Safety Net
"$27 billion for a golden defense dome, yet Republicans want to cut Medicaid," wrote one observer. "Vote accordingly in 2026."
Apr 25, 2025
As Republicans in Congress push forward with a sweeping tax and spending plan that could be be paid for in part by deep cuts to Medicaid and to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the GOP plans to add a defense package to that bill which will include "an initial $27 billion boost" for the Golden Dome desired by U.S. President Donald, according to Thursday reporting from Reuters.
Trump has said he wants an "Iron Dome for America"—something akin to Israel's Iron Dome anti-missile defense. In a speech earlier this year he referred to it as a "Golden Dome."
Experts who spoke to NPR recently said that building a Golden Dome would be more complicated than Israel's Iron Dome for multiple reasons. Dylan Spaulding, a senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, earlier this week called the Golden Dome idea a "complete fantasy."
According to Reuters, which cited "a document" and a congressional aide, the $27 billion would be a part of a $150 billion defense package Republicans plan to introduce. "It will be part of Trump's sweeping tax cuts bill, which will cut taxes by about $5 trillion and add approximately $5.7 trillion to the federal government's debt over the next decade," per the outlet. The measure, if passed, will also fund the construction of 14 warships and increase homeland security spending.
"The $27 billion investment in Golden Dome will fund the building of more missile interceptors and the purchase of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) antiballistic missile batteries, according to the congressional aide. THAAD is made by Lockheed Martin," the defense contractor, Reuters reported.
According to reporting from the outlet last week, billionaire "Elon Musk's SpaceX and two partners have emerged as front-runners to win a crucial part of the Golden Dome program that would track incoming missiles."
Bob Peterson, a senior research fellow for strategic deterrence at the right-wing think tank the Heritage Foundation, applauded the move. Peterson shared Reuters' reporting and wrote on Friday: "This is an important start to building Golden Dome. I sincerely hope this passes so that missile defense will protect all Americans from our adversaries."
Not everyone is enthusiastic about the spending.
One observer wrote on social media: "Golden Dome missile defense shield? WTF. $27 billion for a golden defense dome, yet Republicans want to cut Medicaid and Social Security. Vote accordingly in 2026."
"More than 180 companies are interested, but Musk's Space X just so happens to be the 'front-runner' for the contracts," wrote Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), reacting to earlier reporting from Reuters about Musk's potential involvement in the project. "Shut this corrupt deal down. No cuts to Medicaid and Social Security to pay for more Musk contracts."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular