<p>What a waste! Are there more Blum or Fisher on the horizon? </p>
<p><a href=“How to pick a plaintiff: The man who chose Abigail Fisher”>How to pick a plaintiff: The man who chose Abigail Fisher;
<p>Didn’t UT win against Fisher in every court before she took the case to the Supreme Court?
If so, these news may be slightly suprising, but not necessarily shocking. </p>
<p>And back to the Supreme Court it goes…</p>
<p>Interesting. The author of the opinion is a Reagan appointee who is considered a feeder of judicial clerks to the conservative Justices.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Have you see evidence that the appeals will continue? It seems that the Lower Court made sure to address the question raised by the SCOTUS and voted accordingly, with the sole dissenting voice to be unswayed.</p>
<p>I am hardly a SCOTUS expert but it seems quite a hurdle for the plaintiff to have this case heard one more time by the Supreme Court. Buy who knows what deeper pockets might buy one more time. </p>
<p>Based on a cursory reading, I think there’s a very good chance the Supreme Court would take the case again. I think they really meant to apply a very high, very rigorous standard to state justifications for affirmative action policies, and it’s not clear at all to me that the appeals court majority honored that. Four of the five conservative Supreme Court Justices would almost certainly agree with Garza’s dissent, and my bet would be that Kennedy agrees, too.</p>
<p>It’s actually pretty common for the Supreme Court to hear sequential appeals in the same case. A case they have already heard is much more likely than average to get a grant of certiorari. There are three simple reasons for that: (1) The Court is familiar with the case and the issues. (2) When the Court decided to hear the case the first time, it probably took into account that it was both “important” in terms of its underlying issues and parties, well-litigated by counsel on both sides, and well-handled by the lower courts to produce a clear record. All of that will usually continue to be true in Round 2 and thereafter. (3) Whenever the Supreme Court decides a case, there’s a lag of a few years for cases dealing with next-order interpretations of the Supreme Court’s last opinion percolate through the system. The actual case the Supreme Court decided, if it has to go back to lower courts for further consideration, is often one of the first cases to get a Court of Appeals decision interpreting the recent Supreme Court case. So it is often an attractive vehicle for further refinements to the legal rules in the first Supreme Court opinion.</p>
<p>The 5th Circuit may also want to take another look at this en banc before it goes back up. That wouldn’t surprise me. The Fisher attorneys will certainly request en banc rehearing.</p>