Talk:Fisher v. University of Texas (2013)

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

U.S. Supreme Court cases Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Texas / University of Texas at Austin / Government Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Texas - University of Texas at Austin (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

A fact from Fisher v. University of Texas (2013) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 April 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that in the upcoming US Supreme Court case of Fisher v. University of Texas, a white woman argues that the university discriminated against her based on race? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2012/April.

THIS ARTICLE REALLY, REALLY NEEDS TO BE UPDATED. What are the latest developments? Is the case back in the Supreme Court? Was an appeal never filed?12.19.106.194 (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be updated68.15.115.179 (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC) {{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=[reply]

This article is going to end up concerning two distinct SCOTUS cases. Is it time to split the article and turn this page to a disambiguation page? --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be split. This is not a reargument: reargument means that the court ordered that a case be re-argued without producing any opinion. This was not the case. Definitely should be split, and the "reargued December 9, 2015" should be changed to "Decided on June 2013" (or whenever the exact date was!).

I have just modified 3 external links on Fisher v. University of Texas (2013). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120429014055/http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/uts-race-conscious-admission-policy-facing-supreme-court-2191410.html to http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/uts-race-conscious-admission-policy-facing-supreme-court-2191410.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111114145809/http://mainelaw.maine.edu/academics/maine-law-review/pdf/Vol63_2/vol63_me_l_rev_569.pdf to http://www.mainelaw.maine.edu/academics/maine-law-review/pdf/Vol63_2/vol63_me_l_rev_569.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140503202600/http://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/content/articles/2012/07/Brown-Nagin_65_Vand_L_Rev_En_Banc_113.pdf to http://www.vanderbiltlawreview.org/content/articles/2012/07/Brown-Nagin_65_Vand_L_Rev_En_Banc_113.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the Louis D. Brandeis Center get multiple paragraphs dedicated to explaining its founding, ethos and argument in the case? All the other amici are summed up in a single sentence merely stating that the organisations filed briefs without detailing their position or background. If no one objects I would like to gut the LDBC section and just add its name to the pre-existing list of other amici. IrishStephen (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. I came here for the same reason. There were dozens of amicus briefs filed. When I saw the section on the LDB brief, I wondered, Did it have some special importance? But upon checking the oral argument transcript, I could find no reference to their brief, or specifically to the issues brought up in it (i.e. the historical impact on Jewish students). I'm going to go ahead and gut this section, and add its name to the pre-existing list of other amici, as you suggested. Ztrawhcs (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]