Coverage of PLF at the Supreme Court for Schuette
Last week I was in Washington, D.C. for the oral argument in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. This is the case that is challenging whether voters have the right to prohibit racial preferences by government. In 1996, California voters becase the first to adopt such a ban when they passed Proposition 209, and since that time, many other states have followed suit, including Michigan in 2006. However, when Michigan voters adopted Proposal 2, activist groups immediately challenged it as unconstitutional under the federal Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. PLF has been involved in that case since its inception, and we have filed briefs at every stage of the litigation. For an explanation of our thoughts on the actvist groups’ legal arguments, please check out our many blog posts on the subject. Needless to say, we do not believe that the Equal Protection Clause is violated when the people require their government to treat everyone equally.
Because of PLF’s intimate involvement with the sponsors of Proposal 2, as well as our expertise in defending Proposition 209 in California, PLF was in high demand when the Supreme Court heard the Schuette case. On Tuesday before the argument, National Review Online published this op-ed I coauthored with PLF Friend, Roger Clegg. That same morning, I appeared on Armstrong & Getty on Tuesday morning to preview the argument, and then returned on Wednesday morning to provide a recap. While I was in the Supreme Court listening to the oral argument, my colleague, Ralph Kasarda, was debating the case on KQED — National Public Radio for Northern California. After the argument I first posted my thoughts on the PLF Liberty Blog, gave a radio interview to KSTE, and then headed over to the PBS Studios in Arlington to tape the PBS Newshour live. You can read the transcript of the Newshour here, or you can watch the whole segment the video below.
What to read next
PLF asks the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that there is no “legislative exception” to the unconstitutional conditions doctrine
It seems that some governments and courts prefer to treat Supreme Court precedent as an option, rather than a requirement. The Supreme Court has ruled—twice—that it’s unconstitutional for government to … ›