Skip to content

Fisher v. University of Texas Ruling

Today, the Supreme Court came out with its ruling on the case Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin that lower courts did not apply a sufficiently high level of scrutiny to the University of Texas’s use of race in admissions decisions, sending the case back to one of those lower courts to be reconsidered.

In a 7-1 ruling, the court found that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit erred in not applying “strict scrutiny” to the policies of the University of Texas at Austin (UT). The Supreme Court left intact its precedent that diversity can be a compelling government interest.The case has been sent back to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Writing the majority opinion was Justice Kennedy, who was joined by all of the conservative members of the court and Justice Sotomayer. Justice Ginsberg wrote the lone dissent. Justice Kagan recused herself because of her work on the case as Solicitor General.

The case was brought by Abigail Fisher, a white woman, who was rejected for admission by the UT. Fisher said that her rights were violated by UT’s consideration of race and ethnicity in admissions decisions. Fisher’s lawyers argued that UT need not consider race because it has found another way to assure diversity in the student body.

The decision said that “good faith” by the university would not be enough to justify the consideration of race. However, the decision does not offer an opinion on whether UT can produce sufficient evidence. Rather, it faults the appeals court for not reviewing that question using the high bar of “strict scrutiny” for the consideration of race.

It is likely that today’s ruling could mean that — after another round at the Fifth Circuit — the case could return to the Supreme Court.

 

House Defeats Farm Bill

The House voted down the farm bill by a vote of 195-234 early this afternoon. Sixty-two Republicans voted against the measure while 24 Democrats voted for the measure.

With that, the House is adjourned for the week.

It is unclear major legislation, including student loans or appropriations measures, that the House will consider next week. Incidentally, next week is the last work week before the July 4th Recess.

Senate Reports Student Loan Progress

Senate Democrats, Republicans and the White House are reporting progress in negotiations to a student loan interest rate fix. A group of Democratic senators, including Jack Reed RI), Joe Manchin III (WV), and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, along with independent Angus King (ME), have been conferring with Senate Republicans over the past 24 hours.

The plan, which is broadly based on the president’s budget proposal, may be finalized as soon as this week, according to one of the principal negotiators. All that is known at this time is that the proposal calls for shifting from the current 3.4 percent fixed interest rate to a market-driven variable interest rate. While the White House, including Education Secretary Arne Duncan and chief economic advisor Gene Sperling, have been kept in the loop about the negotiations, there is no word that the Senate is talking to the House.

Meanwhile, the House continues to debate both the Farm Bill and an abortion measure.

 

House Proceeds on Farm Bill as White House Threatens Veto

The House will begin consideration of the Farm Bill (HR 1947) today and finish consideration on Thursday. While the House Rules Committee is still determining which amendments will be made in order, 220 amendments have been submitted to the Rules Committee.The House Rules Committee has proceeded with a rare two day consideration of the rule to determine which amendments should be made in order. The bulk of these amendments pertain to the SNAP program.

Continue reading “House Proceeds on Farm Bill as White House Threatens Veto”

House Proceeds on Farm Bill

This week, the House will consider its version of the Farm Bill (HR 1947) to authorize USDA programs for five years. The controversial measure is expected to be considered for the bulk of the week.

Where the Senate passed a bipartisan Farm Bill earlier this year by 66–27, with 18 Republicans voting in favor, the House measure — and the House generally being more polarized — is facing a much more controversial bill. Provisions of contention include:

  • the bill’s new dairy program that would provide insurance to milk producers and includes a supply management plan to reduce price-depressing dairy surpluses,
  • a limit of $40,000 per person per year in premium subsidies or an elimination of premium subsidies to farmers with an adjusted gross income of more than $250,000,
  • $20.5 billion in reductions over 10 years to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) program, and
  • changes to the crop insurance program.

Like the Senate bill, the House measure would end $5 billion a year in direct payments made to farmers and landowners based on the past crop production history of qualifying acres. Part of the savings from ending direct payments would be used to create a hybrid of insurance-like plans and reference, or target, prices to help farmers protect against price drops. How this program is changed is controversial to both environmental and fiscal conservative groups.

No farm bill would mean that there are no changes to the SNAP and other programs that conservatives believe should be changed. Thus Republican leadership are encouraging Members to vote for the reauthorization despite any flaws with the bill.

As previously discussed, the House reauthorization includes most of higher education’s many requests reauthorization requests for the NIFA. It House bill also provides mandatory funds for three programs administered by NIFA. Although major floor amendments to the Research and Extension Title (Title VII) of the bill are not expected at this time, it is unlikely there will be no amendment to the Research Title.

UW’s College of the Environment receives USDA and NIFA funds, and the Office of Federal Relations is tracking the progress of the Farm Bill closely.