ReportWire

Tag: legal education

  • Affirmative Action Fast Facts | CNN

    Affirmative Action Fast Facts | CNN

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Here is some background information about affirmative action as well as a few notable court cases.

    Affirmative action policies focus on improving opportunities for groups of people, like women and minorities, who have been historically excluded in United States’ society. The initial emphasis was on education and employment. President John F. Kennedy was the first president to use the term in an executive order.

    Supporters argue that affirmative action is necessary to ensure racial and gender diversity in education and employment. Critics state that it is unfair and causes reverse discrimination.

    Racial quotas are considered unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.

    The state of Texas replaced its affirmative action plan with a percentage plan that guarantees the top 10% of high-school graduates a spot in any state university in Texas. California and Florida have similar programs.

    1954 – The US Supreme Court, in Brown v. Board of Education, rules that the “separate but equal” doctrine violates the Constitution.

    1961 – President Kennedy creates the Council on Equal Opportunity in an executive order. This ensures that federal contractors hire people regardless of race, creed, color or national origin.

    1964 – The Civil Rights Act renders discrimination illegal in the workplace.

    1978 – In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, a notable reverse discrimination case, the Supreme Court rules that colleges cannot use racial quotas because it violates the Equal Protection Clause. As one factor for admission, however, race can be used.

    1995 – The University of Michigan rejects the college application of Jennifer Gratz, a top high school student in suburban Detroit who is white.

    October 14, 1997 – Gratz v. Bollinger, et al., is filed in federal court in the Eastern District of Michigan. The University of Michigan is sued by white students, including Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, who claim the undergraduate and law school affirmative action policies using race and/or gender as a factor in admissions is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    December 3, 1997 – A similar case, Grutter v. Bollinger, is filed in federal court in the Eastern District of Michigan. Barbara Grutter, denied admission to the University of Michigan Law School, claims that other applicants, with lower test scores and grades, were given an unfair advantage due to race.

    December 2000 – The judge in the Gratz v. Bollinger case rules that the University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions policy does not violate the standards set by the Supreme Court.

    March 2001 – The judge in the Grutter v. Bollinger case rules the University of Michigan Law School’s admissions policy is unconstitutional.

    December 2001 – The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals hears appeals in both University of Michigan cases.

    May 14, 2002 – The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reverses the district court’s decision in Grutter v. Bollinger.

    January 17, 2003 – The administration of President George W. Bush files a friend-of-the-court brief with the Supreme Court, opposing the University of Michigan’s affirmative action program.

    April 1, 2003 – The US Supreme Court hears oral arguments on the two cases. US Solicitor General Theodore Olson offers arguments in support of the plaintiffs.

    June 23, 2003 – The Supreme Court rules on Grutter v. Bollinger that the University of Michigan Law School may give preferential treatment to minorities during the admissions process. The Court upholds the law school policy by a vote of five to four.

    June 23, 2003 – In Gratz v. Bollinger, the undergraduate policy in which a point system gave specific “weight” to minority applicants is overturned six to three.

    December 22, 2003 – The Supreme Court rules that race can be a factor in universities’ admission programs but it cannot be an overriding factor. This decision affects the Grutter and Gratz cases.

    November 7, 2006 – The Michigan electorate strikes down affirmative action by approving a proposition barring affirmative action in public education, employment, or contracting.

    January 31, 2007 – After the Supreme Court sends the case back to district court; the case is dismissed. Gratz and Hamacher settle for $10,000 in administrative costs, but do not receive damages.

    2008 – Abigail Noel Fisher, a white woman, sues the University of Texas. She argues that the university should not use race as a factor in admission policies that favor African-American and Hispanic applicants over whites and Asian-Americans.

    July 1, 2011 – An appeals court overturns Michigan’s 2006 ban on the use of race and/or gender as a factor in admissions or hiring practices.

    November 15, 2012 – The US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals throws out Michigan’s 2006 ban on affirmative action in college admissions and public hiring, declaring it unconstitutional.

    June 24, 2013 – The Supreme Court sends the University of Texas case back to the lower court for further review without ruling.

    October 15, 2013 – The US Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a case concerning Michigan’s 2006 law on affirmative action.

    April 22, 2014 – In a six to two ruling, the Supreme Court upholds Michigan’s ban of using racial criteria in college admissions.

    July 15, 2014 – The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upholds the use of race by the University of Texas as a factor in undergraduate admissions to promote diversity on campus. The vote is two to one.

    November 17, 2014 – Students for Fair Admissions sues Harvard University, alleging Harvard intentionally discriminates against Asian-Americans. Students for Fair Admissions is run by Edward Blum, a conservative advocate, who sought Asian-Americans rejected by Harvard.

    December 9, 2015 – The US Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the University of Texas case regarding race as a factor in admissions policies.

    June 23, 2016 – The US Supreme Court upholds the Affirmative Action program by a vote of four to three with Justice Elena Kagan taking no part in the consideration. The ruling allows the limited use of affirmative action policies by schools.

    October 15, 2018 – The lawsuit against Harvard filed in 2014 by Students for Fair Admissions goes to trial.

    February 2019 – Texas Tech University enters an agreement with the Department of Education to stop considering race and/or national origin as a factor in its admissions process, concluding a 14-year-long investigation into the school’s use of affirmative action.

    October 1, 2019 – US District Court Judge Allison Burroughs upholds Harvard’s admissions process in the Students for Fair Admissions case, ruling that while Harvard’s admissions process is “not perfect,” she would not “dismantle a very fine admissions program that passes constitutional muster, solely because it could do better.”

    November 12, 2020 – A Boston-based US appeals court rejects an appeal brought by the Students for Fair Admissions group.

    January 24, 2022 – The US Supreme Court announces it will reconsider race-based affirmative action in college admissions. The justices will hear challenges to policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina that use students’ race among many criteria to decide who should gain a coveted place in an entering class. On June 29, 2023, the US Supreme Court says colleges and universities can no longer take race into consideration as a specific basis for granting admission.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ted Cruz Fast Facts | CNN Politics

    Ted Cruz Fast Facts | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Here’s a look at the life of Ted Cruz, Republican senator from Texas and former 2016 presidential candidate.

    Birth date: December 22, 1970

    Birth place: Calgary, Alberta, Canada

    Birth name: Rafael Edward Cruz

    Father: Rafael Cruz, pastor

    Mother: Eleanor Darragh, computer programmer

    Marriage: Heidi (Nelson) Cruz (2001-present)

    Children: Caroline and Catherine

    Education: Princeton University, B.A. in Public Policy, 1992; Harvard Law School, J.D., 1995

    Religion: Southern Baptist

    His father, Rafael Cruz, left Cuba as a teenager in 1957 amid the nation’s revolution. During the Cuban revolution, Rafael Cruz sided with Fidel Castro against dictator Fulgencio Batista, but later became a critic of Castro.

    While at Harvard Law School, Cruz was an editor of the Harvard Law Review and founder of the Harvard Latino Law Review.

    First Hispanic US Senator from Texas.

    Was a dual citizen of Canada and the United States until he renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2014.

    1996-1997 – Clerks for US Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

    1997-1999 – Attorney with the Washington, DC-based law firm Cooper, Carvin & Rosenthal.

    1999-2000 – Domestic policy adviser during George W. Bush’s first presidential campaign.

    2001 – Associate Deputy Attorney General at the Department of Justice.

    2001-2003 – Director of the Office of Policy Planning, with the Federal Trade Commission.

    2003-2008 – Solicitor General of Texas. He is the first Hispanic to hold the position. He is also the longest serving solicitor general in Texas’ history.

    2004-2009 – Adjunct law professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

    2008-2012 – Attorney with Morgan, Lewis & Bockius in Houston.

    May 29, 2012 – Wins enough votes in the Texas GOP senatorial primary to force a runoff.

    July 31, 2012 – Defeats Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst in the runoff election for the Republican Senate nomination, by a vote of 57% to 43%.

    November 6, 2012 – Elected US senator from Texas by defeating Democrat Paul Sadler, 56% to 41%.

    November 14, 2012 – Named vice chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

    January 3, 2013 – Sworn in as the 34th US senator from Texas.

    September 24, 2013 – Reads Dr. Seuss’s “Green Eggs and Ham” as a bedtime story for his children during a 21-hour speech aimed at derailing President Barack Obama’s health care reform law.

    June 2014 – His spokeswoman confirms that Cruz has renounced his Canadian citizenship, and is no longer a dual citizen of Canada and the United States.

    March 23, 2015 – Cruz announces his candidacy for president in a 30-second video message posted on Twitter shortly after midnight. Later in the day he announces he is running for president during a speech at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.

    July 15, 2015 – A New York Times spokesperson confirms that Cruz’s memoir will appear on the New York Times’ bestseller list, a week after the newspaper rejected it as a bestseller because sales were allegedly inflated by “bulk purchases.” Cruz’s book “A Time for Truth” was published on June 30.

    April 27, 2016 – Cruz formally names Carly Fiorina as his vice presidential running mate – a last-ditch move to regain momentum after being mathematically eliminated from winning the GOP presidential nomination outright.

    May 3, 2016 – Cruz announces he is suspending his presidential bid after losing the Indiana primary.

    May 10, 2016 – Ending speculation about whether he would take a break from Congress to prep for another presidential run in 2020, Cruz announces that he will campaign to keep his Senate seat in 2018.

    September 23, 2016 – Cruz endorses Donald Trump for the presidency, surprising many after a contentious primary filled with nasty personal attacks and Cruz’s dramatic snub of Trump at the Republican National Convention, where he pointedly refused to endorse the nominee.

    November 6, 2018 – Cruz defeats Democratic Rep. Beto O’Rourke 50.9% to 48.3% in the race for Senate in Texas, holding off the progressive online fundraising sensation.

    March 15, 2019 – A watchdog group discloses that Cruz’s campaign has been fined $35,000 by the Federal Election Commission for failing to accurately report more than $1 million in loans that helped underwrite his first Senate bid in 2012.

    July 13, 2020 – China announces sanctions against US officials, including Cruz, in retaliation for measures revealed on July 9 by the US Treasury Department over Beijing’s alleged human rights abuses in Xinjiang.

    January 6, 2021 – Cruz objects to Arizona’s Electoral College results during the joint session of Congress.

    February 17, 2021 – Cruz travels to Cancun, Mexico, for vacation as a winter disaster in his home state leaves millions without power or water. He later says the trip “was obviously a mistake” and that “in hindsight I wouldn’t have done it.”

    September 30, 2021 – The Supreme Court agrees to hear a case concerning Cruz’s 2018 campaign and consider regulations that limit money that committees can raise after the election to reimburse loans made before the election. On May 16, 2022, the Supreme Court rules in favor of Cruz. The court says that a federal cap on candidates using political contributions after an election to recoup personal loans made to their campaign is unconstitutional.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Who is Steve Jones, the judge who’ll decide whether to move Fulton County defendants’ cases to federal court? | CNN Politics

    Who is Steve Jones, the judge who’ll decide whether to move Fulton County defendants’ cases to federal court? | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Federal district Judge Steve Jones of the Northern District of Georgia will hear requests from three of the 19 defendants hoping to move their Georgia election subversion cases out of state court.

    The group, which includes former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, is trying to get the case dismissed under federal law – a determination that may impact Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ case against former President Donald Trump and others. Meadows and others will present evidence about whether to move the case, while the judge has allowed the state court case to proceed in the meantime.

    Jones, a Barack Obama appointee, was confirmed by the US Senate in 2011 by a 90-0 vote. A former Superior Court judge, he grew up in Athens, Georgia, and graduated from the University of Georgia School of Law in 1987.

    So far, Jones has shown that he would like to avoid a circus while not giving short shrift to Meadows’ arguments, said Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. The orders Jones has already issued have hewed tightly to the relevant statutes and case law, and he has moved the proceedings along very efficiently.

    Jones is “by the book, which includes quickly and quietly,” Vladeck said.

    Jones has overseen high-profile cases before.

    In July, he declined to toss three lawsuits claiming that Georgia’s congressional and legislative districts were drawn in a way that discriminates against Black voters. He slated a trial on the matter for September.

    In 2020, Jones blocked the state’s six-week abortion ban, which later took effect after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. In 2019, he rejected an attempt by a voting rights group to restore to the rolls 98,000 Georgia voters who had been removed after being classified as “inactive” after a new state law took effect.

    In that case, Jones found that the 11th Amendment of the Constitution and the principles of sovereign immunity “do not permit a federal court to enjoin a state (or its officers) to follow a federal court’s interpretation of the State of Georgia’s laws.” Jones also determined that the group, Fair Fight Action, failed to show that its claim had a substantial likelihood of success.

    Next, Jones will weigh movement in the case in which Trump is accused of being the head of a “criminal enterprise” that was part of a broad conspiracy to overturn his electoral defeat in Georgia. Trump, who faces 13 charges, is also expected to try to move the case to federal court, according to multiple sources familiar with his legal team’s thinking.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ChatGPT passes exams from law and business schools | CNN Business

    ChatGPT passes exams from law and business schools | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    ChatGPT is smart enough to pass prestigious graduate-level exams – though not with particularly high marks.

    The powerful new AI chatbot tool recently passed law exams in four courses at the University of Minnesota and another exam at University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business, according to professors at the schools.

    To test how well ChatGPT could generate answers on exams for the four courses, professors at the University of Minnesota Law School recently graded the tests blindly. After completing 95 multiple choice questions and 12 essay questions, the bot performed on average at the level of a C+ student, achieving a low but passing grade in all four courses.

    ChatGPT fared better during a business management course exam at Wharton, where it earned a B to B- grade. In a paper detailing the performance, Christian Terwiesch, a Wharton business professor, said ChatGPT did “an amazing job” at answering basic operations management and process-analysis questions but struggled with more advanced prompts and made “surprising mistakes” with basic math.

    “These mistakes can be massive in magnitude,” he wrote.

    The test results come as a growing number of schools and teachers express concerns about the immediate impact of ChatGPT on students and their ability to cheat on assignments. Some educators are now moving with remarkable speed to rethink their assignments in response to ChatGPT, even as it remains unclear how widespread use is of the tool among students and how harmful it could really be to learning.

    Since it was made available in late November, ChatGPT has been used to generate original essays, stories and song lyrics in response to user prompts. It has drafted research paper abstracts that fooled some scientists. Some CEOs have even used it to write emails or do accounting work.

    ChatGPT is trained on vast amounts of online data in order to generate responses to user prompts. While it has gained traction among users, it has also raised some concerns, including about inaccuracies and its potential to perpetuate biases and spread misinformation.

    Jon Choi, one of the University of Minnesota law professors, told CNN the goal of the tests was to explore ChatGPT’s potential to assist lawyers in their practice and to help students in exams, whether or not it’s permitted by their professors, because the questions often mimic the writing lawyers do in real life.

    “ChatGPT struggled with the most classic components of law school exams, such as spotting potential legal issues and deep analysis applying legal rules to the facts of a case,” Choi said. “But ChatGPT could be very helpful at producing a first draft that a student could then refine.”

    He argues human-AI collaboration is the most promising use case for ChatGPT and similar technology.

    “My strong hunch is that AI assistants will become standard tools for lawyers in the near future, and law schools should prepare their students for that eventuality,” he said. “Of course, if law professors want to continue to test simple recall of legal rules and doctrines, they’ll need to put restrictions in place like banning the internet during exams to enforce that.”

    Likewise, Wharton’s Terwiesch found the chatbot was “remarkably good” at modifying its answers in response to human hints, such as reworking answers after pointing out an error, suggesting the potential for people to work together with AI.

    In the short-term, however, discomfort remains with whether and how students should use ChatGPT. Public schools in New York City and Seattle, for example, have already banned students and teachers from using ChatGPT on the district’s networks and devices.

    Considering ChatGPT performed above average on his exam, Terwiesch told CNN he agrees restrictions should be put in place for students while they’re taking tests.

    “Bans are needed,” he said. “After all, when you give a medical doctor a degree, you want them to know medicine, not how to use a bot. The same holds for other skill certification, including law and business.”

    But Terwiesch believes this technology still ultimately has a place in the classroom. “If all we end up with is the same educational system as before, we have wasted an amazing opportunity that comes with ChatGPT,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Who is Hakeem Jeffries, the Democrat seeking to succeed Nancy Pelosi | CNN Politics

    Who is Hakeem Jeffries, the Democrat seeking to succeed Nancy Pelosi | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries launched his bid for House Democratic leadership on Friday, a historic move in which he would succeed speaker Nancy Pelosi after two decades of leading congressional Democrats. If chosen, Jeffries, a progressive, would become the first Black lawmaker to lead a party in Congress.

    He has widespread support among Democrats, including from Pelosi as well as House Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland, both of whom said they will also step down from their leadership roles.

    A rising star in the Democratic Party, Jeffries was born in Brooklyn, New York, and studied political science at the State University of New York at Binghamton and received a master’s degree in public policy from Georgetown University. He also attended law school at New York University School of Law where he was on the law review.

    After law school, Jeffries clerked for late federal district judge Harold Baer Jr. of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, was a lawyer for Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP and was litigation counsel for CBS and Viacom Inc.

    He started his career in politics after being elected to the New York State Assembly in 2006. In 2012, he was elected to New York’s 8th congressional district, which includes parts of Brooklyn and Queens. During his time in Congress, Jeffries has pushed for policing reform, including a national ban on chokeholds following the death of Eric Garner, a Black man who died in 2014 after being held in the restraining move. He was also instrumental in the passage of the First Step Act and co-sponsored the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act that passed the House but failed in the Senate.

    Jeffries also co-sponsored the Music Modernization Act, a bill that overhauled laws related to how songwriters are paid when their songs are licensed or played. It was signed into law in 2018.

    In 2019, he became chairman of the Democratic caucus, making him the youngest member serving in leadership. Jeffries was part of a select group of lawmakers who were impeachment managers during the Senate trial of then-President Donald Trump, in which he referenced lyrics by late rapper The Notorious B.I.G. when outlining the House’s case against Trump. He has also been a member of the House Judiciary Committee, Budget Committee and Congressional Black Caucus.

    In a letter announcing his leadership bid, Jeffries said he hopes to “lead an effort that centers our communication strategy around the messaging principle that values unite, issues divide.” He also praised the past leadership but said “more must be done to combat inflation, defend our democracy, secure reproductive freedom, welcome new Americans, promote equal protection under the law and improve public safety throughout this country.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link