<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>American Civil Rights Institute Blog &#187; Judiciary</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.acri.org/blog/category/judiciary/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.acri.org/blog</link>
	<description>&#34;Race has no place in American Life or Law&#34;</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:41:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>5th Circuit to Hear Arguments in Texas Racial Preferences Case</title>
		<link>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/07/22/5th-circuit-to-hear-arguments-in-texas-racial-preferences-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/07/22/5th-circuit-to-hear-arguments-in-texas-racial-preferences-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 17:44:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>La Shawn Barber</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Diversity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judiciary]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.acri.org/blog/?p=5950</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
Abigail Fisher and Rachel Michalewicz are suing the University of Texas (UT) at Austin (Fisher v. University of Texas), alleging racial discrimination in admissions. After losing in district court, the plaintiffs appealed to the 5th Circuit. The Texas Tribune reports that the 5th Circuit will hear arguments next month.
If the plaintiffs lose the case, they [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/07/22/5th-circuit-to-hear-arguments-in-texas-racial-preferences-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Laurie Morrow on Defending Proposition 209</title>
		<link>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/06/22/laurie-morrow-on-defending-proposition-209/</link>
		<comments>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/06/22/laurie-morrow-on-defending-proposition-209/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Jun 2010 13:38:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>La Shawn Barber</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Judiciary]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.acri.org/blog/?p=5706</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[California&#8217;s Proposition 209, which amended the state constitution to bar the government from granting preferences to or discriminating against individuals or groups based on race, faces legal challenges after almost 14 years. The Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigration Rights By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) filed suit earlier this year, and the Pacific [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/06/22/laurie-morrow-on-defending-proposition-209/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Browne and Clegg on Felon Voting</title>
		<link>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/06/21/browne-and-clegg-on-felon-voting/</link>
		<comments>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/06/21/browne-and-clegg-on-felon-voting/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jun 2010 15:36:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>La Shawn Barber</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Judiciary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roger Clegg]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.acri.org/blog/?p=5692</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Although federal law allows states to bar felons from voting, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Washington state is violating the Voting Rights Act by barring felons from voting. 
Sharon Browne, lead attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, and Roger Clegg, president and general counsel of the Center [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/06/21/browne-and-clegg-on-felon-voting/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Defend California&#8217;s Proposition 209</title>
		<link>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/06/17/defend-californias-proposition-209/</link>
		<comments>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/06/17/defend-californias-proposition-209/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jun 2010 17:52:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>La Shawn Barber</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Judiciary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pacific Legal Foundation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ward Connerly]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.acri.org/blog/?p=5638</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Earlier this year I blogged about the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigration Rights By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) filing a lawsuit challenging Proposition 209, approved by 54 percent of California voters in 1996. The law bars the state from granting preferences to or discriminating against individuals or groups based on race in [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/06/17/defend-californias-proposition-209/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Newsflash: Elena Kagan Supports Racial Preferences</title>
		<link>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/06/10/newsflash-elena-kagan-supports-racial-preferences/</link>
		<comments>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/06/10/newsflash-elena-kagan-supports-racial-preferences/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jun 2010 16:45:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>La Shawn Barber</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Judiciary]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.acri.org/blog/?p=5590</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It shouldn&#8217;t surprise anyone to know solicitor general and U.S. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is a liberal who supports racial discrimination and preferences. From Roger Clegg at National Review Online:
&#8220;The Piscataway case involved a school board’s decision to lay off a white schoolteacher because of a desire for more racial diversity on the faculty; [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/06/10/newsflash-elena-kagan-supports-racial-preferences/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>U.S. Supreme Court Says Applicants&#8217; Case Can Go Forward</title>
		<link>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/05/25/u-s-supreme-court-says-applicants-case-can-go-forward/</link>
		<comments>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/05/25/u-s-supreme-court-says-applicants-case-can-go-forward/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2010 16:02:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>La Shawn Barber</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Judiciary]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.acri.org/blog/?p=5469</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A group of black firefighter applicants in Chicago filed suit against the city and claimed it used an unlawful cut-off passing score for the pencil-and-paper civil service employment exam. 
Applicants who scored below 64 were disqualified. Because so many applicants scored 89 or above, however the city set a second cut-off point. Applicants who scored [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/05/25/u-s-supreme-court-says-applicants-case-can-go-forward/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Buffalo Firefighters Case</title>
		<link>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/05/18/buffalo-firefighters-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/05/18/buffalo-firefighters-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 May 2010 15:52:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>La Shawn Barber</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Judiciary]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.acri.org/blog/?p=5401</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Have you heard about the firefighters case in Buffalo? Last week, a federal judge issued orders to dismiss a case filed by the Men of Color Helping All Society, a group of black firefighters who claimed 1998 and 2002 promotion exams disparately impacted them. In other words, they scored too low to qualify for promotions. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/05/18/buffalo-firefighters-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>California Supreme Court to Hear San Fran Preferences Case</title>
		<link>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/05/04/california-supreme-court-to-hear-san-fran-preferences-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/05/04/california-supreme-court-to-hear-san-fran-preferences-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 May 2010 15:27:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>La Shawn Barber</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Judiciary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pacific Legal Foundation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.acri.org/blog/?p=5220</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today, California&#8217;s highest court will hear arguments in Construction v. City Of San Francisco, a case in which two contractors challenged San Francisco&#8217;s preferential treatment ordinance. 
Although California state law bars the government from granting preferences to and discriminating against individuals or groups based on skin color in hiring, contracting, and admissions, San Francisco mandates [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/05/04/california-supreme-court-to-hear-san-fran-preferences-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bridgeport Police Case</title>
		<link>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/04/29/bridgeport-police-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/04/29/bridgeport-police-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Apr 2010 13:12:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>La Shawn Barber</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Judiciary]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.acri.org/blog/?p=5184</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Connecticut seems to be a hot spot for federal discrimination claims these days. First New Haven (Ricci v. DeStefano), now Bridgeport. 
In 2008, 12 white firefighters filed suit against the city of Bridgeport for re-scoring a lieutenant exam, because too few minorities scored high enough to qualify for promotions. The case was settled last year.
This [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/04/29/bridgeport-police-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Update on New Haven Briscoe Firefighter Lawsuit</title>
		<link>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/04/27/update-on-new-haven-briscoe-firefighter-lawsuit/</link>
		<comments>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/04/27/update-on-new-haven-briscoe-firefighter-lawsuit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2010 14:50:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>La Shawn Barber</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Judiciary]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.acri.org/blog/?p=5147</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Ricci v. DeStefano, over a dozen white firefighters and one Hispanic scored high enough on a promotion exam to qualify for promotions. Because no blacks scored high enough to qualify, however, the city threw out everyone&#8217;s test results for fear of disparate impact lawsuits. The U.S. Supreme Court called foul and said the move [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.acri.org/blog/2010/04/27/update-on-new-haven-briscoe-firefighter-lawsuit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
