Discussion of Major Pending Supreme Court Decisions: Curt Levey on Court Watch podcast
All of the major cases before the Supreme Court this term have yet to be decided, with the exception of Axon v. FTC (see CFJ’s amicus brief). Committee for Justice president Curt Levey sat down with Alex Swoyer, Legal Affairs reporter for the Washington Times, on her Court Watch podcast for a discussion of the pending High Court decisions in cases involving affirmative action, immigration laws, religious liberty, election law, cancellation of student loan debt (see CFJ’s amicus brief), the power of the EPA (see CFJ’s amicus brief), racial gerrymandering, the legal liability of internet platforms, the battle between gay rights and the First Amendment, Andy Warhol’s silkscreen of Prince (see CFJ’s amicus brief), and lots more.
As Curt told Alex, “The last couple of weeks of June are always exciting [at the Supreme Court] and they'll probably be even more exciting than average” this year. Here’s an excerpt from Mr. Levey’s remarks:
“The Harvard and University of North Carolina affirmative action cases … were argued very early in the term so if there’s going to be a surprise, where we see a decision before June, that may be the one.
. . .
There's a lot of schools that if they didn't engage in race-based admissions would be, especially in California, half Asian and they just don't like the look of that. … It’s reminiscent in many ways of what happened almost 100 years ago with Jewish students. … We can all agree that limiting the number of Jewish students was wrong but somehow because we're in the middle of it it's harder for some people to accept that limiting the number of white or Asian students is wrong.
. . .
I think everyone agrees that it's not going to be good news for the universities. I certainly hope that the Court is clear in getting rid of the diversity rationale. … It's largely a fiction. [The educational benefits of diversity are] not really the reason that anyone wants race-based admissions. It's really about [racial] proportionality.
Racial preferences were [originally] a way of evening the playing field. They weren't meant to be a permanent fixture and they've become a permanent fixture and I think the Court is not going to be happy with that. There's going to be probably almost as much screaming after these cases from the left as there was after Dobbs. Hopefully [the decision] won't be leaked.”