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
'To Hell With This Place,' George Santos Says After Expulsion From Congress
"A majority of Republicans voted against Santos' expulsion. That speaks volumes about the state of the Republican Party," said one observer.
Dec 01, 2023
The U.S. House voted overwhelmingly to expel Republican Rep. George Santos on Friday, ending a brief tenure in Congress that was engulfed by glaring and often bewildering scandals.
Santos—who is facing 23 criminal counts including wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, and conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States—left the House chamber before the vote was complete. The final tally was 311-114, with 112 Republicans—including House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.)—and two Democrats voting against expulsion.
"Why would I want to stay here? To hell with this place," Santos told reporters following the vote.
Santos, the sixth lawmaker to ever be expelled from the House, flipped New York's 3rd Congressional District seat from Democratic to Republican in the 2022 midterms, but he began facing calls to step aside before he was even sworn in after it became clear that he fabricated aspects of his biography.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Justice Department unsealed a 13-count indictment accusing Santos of money laundering, wire fraud, and theft of public funds, among other charges. Santos pleaded not guilty.
In October, federal prosecutors filed 10 additional charges against Santos, intensifying calls for his resignation or expulsion. Last month, the House Ethics Committee released a report alleging that Santos used campaign funds on credit card bills, gambling, Botox, and luxury shopping.
"George Santos' expulsion from the House of Representatives is long overdue," Lisa Gilbert, the executive vice president of Public Citizen, said in a statement. "His removal is a testament to the tireless advocacy of ethics advocates and his constituents. Residents of NY-03 were lied to throughout his campaign and denied competent representation in Congress for nearly a year. They now have a chance for honest representation."
"What should have been an open-and-shut case of defrauding voters became a year-long MAGA circus as former Speaker [Kevin] McCarthy, current Speaker Johnson, and other extreme House leaders shielded Santos from accountability—abandoning ethical responsibility in favor of one additional vote for their dangerous and unpopular agenda," Gilbert added. "We are all better off now that Santos no longer holds a seat in Congress."
"Now that Santos has been expelled from Congress, we look forward to seeing him held accountable by our legal system."
Santos' ouster triggers a special election early next year that analysts believe is a toss-up. The New York Timesreported Friday that the race is "expected to be one of the most high-profile and expensive off-year House contests in decades."
"It has the potential to further shrink Republicans’ paper-thin majority and offer a preview of the broader battle for House control next November," the Times noted. "More than two dozen candidates have already expressed interest in running, and labor unions, super PACs, and other groups have begun earmarking millions of dollars for TV ads."
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at Stand Up America, said following Friday's vote that "until the very end, Republican leaders tried to protect Santos, putting cronyism and political expediency over principled leadership."
"A majority of Republicans voted against Santos' expulsion. That speaks volumes about the state of the Republican Party," said Edkins. "The campaign finance laws that Santos clearly violated are essential to preventing and punishing corruption and helping voters make informed decisions at the polls. Now that Santos has been expelled from Congress, we look forward to seeing him held accountable by our legal system."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Not Reduce. Not Abate': UN Chief Calls for Total Fossil Fuel Phaseout at COP28
"Humanity's fate hangs in the balance," said U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres at second day of global climate conference.
Dec 01, 2023
United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres repeated the call for a global phaseout of fossil fuels during his remarks at the opening of the World Climate Action Summit as the U.N. Climate Change Conference entered its second day on Friday.
Guterres delivered a dire warning to the 260 world leaders gathered for the two-day summit taking place within the two week COP28 conference in Dubaias heurged them to ramp up their climate ambitions in the name of the future of human civilization.
"The science is clear," Guterres said. "The 1.5°C limit is only possible if we ultimately stop burning all fossil fuels. Not reduce. Not abate. Phaseout—with a clear timeframe aligned with 1.5°C."
"Make this COP count. Make this COP a gamechanger. Make this COP the new hope in the future of humankind."
Guterres began his remarks on a positive note, congratulating COP28 President Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber for a day-one agreement to operationalize the long-awaited "loss and damage" fund for developing nations. However, he quickly took a somber tone as he described recent visits to Antarctica and Nepal where he had seen ice and glaciers melt.
He said the ice loss was "just one symptom of the sickness bringing our climate to its knees. A sickness only you, global leaders, can cure."
"Earth's vital signs are failing: record emissions, ferocious fires, deadly droughts, and the hottest year ever," Guterres continued. "We can guarantee it even when we're still in November. We are miles from the goals of the Paris agreement—and minutes to midnight for the 1.5-°C."
The cure could come, Guterres said, with a successful "global stocktake." The global stocktake is a mechanism of the Paris agreement whereby world leaders assess their progress to date and set new goals. The first global stocktake concludes with the current conference in Dubai, and the process will repeat every five years from here on out.
Guterres made three main recommendations for the first stocktake:
- "Drastically" reducing emissions: Guterres pointed out that countries' current nationally determined contributions under the Paris agreement put the world on track for around 3°C of warming and urged them to update their pledges in line with the 1.5°C goal. He said that G20 countries, which are responsible for 80% of emissions, should take the lead on this, and that richer nations should aim to reach net-zero by 2040 while less wealthy ones shoot for 2050.
- Speeding a "just transition": In addition to phasing out fossil fuels, Guterres said countries should agree to triple renewable energy, double energy efficiency, and ensure everyone has access to renewable energy by 2030.
- Ensuring "long overdue" climate justice: Guterres called for a "surge in finance" to help poorer, climate vulnerable nations adapt to climate impacts they did little to cause and compensate for loss and damage. He also said that leaders should recommend reforms of the multilateral development banking system so that developing nations could access funds without increasing their debt burden. Finally, he said that wealthier nations must fulfill their promises to provide $40 billion a year in adaptation finance by 2025 and $100 billion a year in climate finance by 2020.
In his remarks on fossil fuels and clean energy, Guterres also addressed fossil fuel executives directly.
"Your old road is rapidly changing," he said, quoting Bob Dylan's "The Times They Are a-Changin.'"
Guterres cited International Energy Agency (IEA) figures finding that oil and gas companies provide only 1% of all clean energy investments.
"Do not double-down on an obsolete business model," Guterres said, addressing fossil fuel CEOs and the hundreds of industry lobbysists in attendance at the conference. "Lead the transition to renewables using the resources you have available. Make no mistake—the road to climate sustainability is also the only viable pathway to economic sustainability of your companies in the future."
Guterres ended his speech with a call to leadership.
"Humanity's fate hangs in the balance," he said. "Make this COP count. Make this COP a gamechanger. Make this COP the new hope in the future of humankind."
Keep ReadingShow Less
DeSantis Death Penalty Spree Fuels Surge in US Executions
The Florida governor approved the executions of six people this year, and the state imposed five new death sentences.
Dec 01, 2023
Florida governor and 2024 presidential candidate Ron DeSantis made a return to capital punishment in his state a key element of his "tough on crime" campaign messaging this past year, and the result was an overall increase in the use of the death penalty in the United States, according to a new annual report.
The Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) found that although a majority of U.S. states—29 of them—have now either abolished the death penalty or enacted a moratorium on executions, the number of people killed by state governments rose from 18 in 2022 to 25 in 2023.
The group attributed the rise to Florida's return to capital punishment after a four-year hiatus, with DeSantis moving forward with the executions of six people—the highest number in the state since 2014.
The state's new pattern of putting Floridians to death showed no sign of slowing down in the coming year, as it also imposed five new death sentences—the most of any state in 2023.
The DPIC catalogued other laws signed by DeSantis this year as he joined the Republican presidential primary race, in which he is currently trailing former Republican President Donald Trump by more than 47 points, with an average of 12.6% of Republicans backing him according to the latest polls.
In April Florida passed a law allowing the state to execute people convicted of sexual battery of a child under the age of 12 in cases in which the victim is not killed—a law that conflicts with a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down a similar statute in Louisiana.
DeSantis also approved a law giving Florida the lowest threshold in the U.S. for permitting juries to sentence a convicted criminal to death, allowing a death sentence if only eight out of 12 jurors agree. Only Alabama and Florida allow non-unanimous juries to impose a death sentence, and Alabama's threshold is 10 jurors.
Florida also holds the country's record for the highest number of exonerations from death row, with 30 people exonerated—the majority after being sentenced by non-unanimous juries.
"It should be hard to send someone to the death penalty," Randolph Bracy, a former Democratic Florida state senator who pushed to require a unanimous jury vote for death sentences, toldThe New York Times when DeSantis signed the bill. "Florida has the highest rate of wrongful convictions, I think, in the country. We needed that threshold to make sure that we were doing the right thing."
As DeSantis' policies led to an increase in executions in the U.S., the DPIC reported that the Florida governor is out of step with a growing number of Americans. For the first time this year, Gallup found that 50% of Americans believe the death penalty is administered unfairly, while only 47% believe it is used fairly.
"That important change can also be seen in the unprecedented show of support for death-sentenced prisoners from conservative lawmakers and elected officials this year, some of whom now oppose use of the death penalty in their state," said Robin M. Maher, executive director of DPIC.
Richard Glossip, who was convicted of a 1997 murder in Oklahoma and sentenced to death earlier this year, was issued a stay of execution in May after the state's Republican attorney general joined campaigners who had long advocated for Glossip's life to be spared.
The DPIC found that a majority of the people who were executed in 2023—79% of whom had impairments such as brain injuries, serious childhood trauma, or developmental disabilities—would likely not have received death sentences had they been tried today, "due to significant changes in the law, prosecutorial decision-making, and public attitudes over the past few decades."
"Today," said the group, "they would have powerful arguments for life sentences and decisions from juries who better understand the effects of mental illness, developmental impairments, and severe trauma."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular