On October 3, 2011, the Supreme Court denied cert in Farina v. Nokia. Previously, CAC filed an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court in support of the petition for a writ of certiorari. CAC’s brief in Farina urged the Supreme Court to grant review in order to clarify the extent to which an agency’s views should be considered as a basis for implied preemption when Congress has expressly disclaimed any implied preemption of state law.
You are here
On March 1, 2011, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the FCC, rejecting AT&T’s meritless argument that corporations are entitled to “personal privacy” under the Freedom of Information Act.
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin involved a challenge to the University of Texas at Austin’s holistic admissions policy, which uses race as one factor among many in selecting a critical mass of diverse, academically accomplished students for admission. The challengers argued that UT-Austin’s policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it allowed the University to take race into account in making decisions to admit students. The lower courts rejected this claim, and the Supreme Court granted review.
In Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, the Supreme Court considered whether the University of Texas at Austin’s holistic consideration of race in undergraduate admissions is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
As the Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, CAC represents more than 500 State legislators from every one of the fifty States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, who believe the Act is constitutional and respects constitutional principles of federalism. CAC has filed briefs on behalf of these elected state leaders on the constitutionality of the Act’s minimum coverage provision and the Act’s expansion of Medicaid.
CAC has defended the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act since it was first challenged in 2010. Representing a group of state legislators that grew to include more than 500 legislators from all 50 states, CAC filed briefs supporting the Act’s constitutionality in the federal district court, appellate court, and the U.S. Supreme Court, which ultimately upheld the Act.
In Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, the Supreme Court considered whether to overrule its prior decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which upheld “agency shop” or “fair share” arrangements against constitutional challenge.