Judicial Watch DEFENDS Rule of Law



[INSIDE JW]

SUPREME COURT UPDATE: Judicial Watch, Allied Educational Foundation
Challenge Harvard, UNC Race-Based Admissions Policies

[[link removed]]
In a perversion of the Constitution, our colleges and universities,
along with our federal government, think nothing of discriminating on
the basis of race. We’re bucking the tide.

We filed _amici curiae_ briefs alongside the Allied Educational
Foundation (AEF) in support of Students for Fair Admissions’ Supreme
Court cases challenging both Harvard College
[[link removed]]
and
the University of North Carolina’s
[[link removed]]
(UNC)
race-based affirmative action admissions programs (_Students for Fair
Admission v. President & Fellows of Harvard College_
[[link removed]]
(No.
20-1199)) and (_Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of
North Carolina, et al._
[[link removed]]
(No.
21-707)).

Students for Fair Admissions argues that both Harvard and UNC’s use
of race in their undergraduate admissions process violates the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The
Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause commands that:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall
any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.
We and AEF argue that the Court should reject a prior 1978 Supreme
Court opinion that seemingly authorizes racial discrimination in
college admissions (_Regents of Univ. of Cal. V. Bakke_, 438 U.S. 265
(1978)). Since _Bakke_, there have been “at least 26 separate
opinions. Many of these have attempted to explain the constitutional
rationale for allowing race-based preferences, even though those
rationales appear to directly conflict with the original meaning and
text of the Equal Protection Clause.”

We highlight how race-based discrimination (and the resulting quota
mentality) is permeating government. The brief quotes Vice President
Kamala Harris’s attack on equality and implicit call for race-based
quotas:

There’s a big difference between equity and equality. Equality
suggests, “everyone should get the same amount.” The problem with
that, not everybody’s starting out from the same place…. Equitable
treatment means we all end up in the same place.
Referencing this and other Biden administration actions promoting
racial favoritism, we note:

There is, however, no constitutional guarantee that we will all “end
up in the same place.” The foregoing statements reveal a distorted
view of the Equal Protection Clause that would guarantee racially
proportionate outcomes under the name of equity, not the equality of
opportunity the Equal Protection Clause has always guaranteed. These
are more than mere words or theories. Racial preferences have
increasingly become incorporated in real-world, governmental decisions
and policies. For example, United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) officials recently sought to use race as a basis for deciding
who receives governmental loan forgiveness.
Our higher education system needs to start following the Constitution
and stop its race discrimination. The Supreme Court would strike a
historic blow for equal protection by putting a stop to this creeping
racism.

(For the record, Judicial Watch has become the preeminent voice for
civil rights and the law, as properly understood under the US
Constitution.

We and AEF recently filed an _amici curiae_
[[link removed]]
in
support of the Coalition for Thomas Jefferson High School’s
challenge to race-based admissions policies for the nationally known
public high school that were put in place at in Fairfax County,
Virginia.

In May 2022, we won a court battle
[[link removed]]
against California’s gender quota law for corporate boards. The
verdict came after a 28-day trial (_Robin Crest et al. v. Alex
Padilla_
[[link removed]]
(Case No. 19STCV27561)). The verdict followed a similar ruling
[[link removed]]
in our favor in April finding California’s diversity mandate for
corporate boards unconstitutional.

In January 2022, the city of Asheville, NC, settled
[[link removed]]
our federal
civil rights lawsuit after agreeing to remove
[[link removed]]
all racially discriminatory provisions in a city-funded scholarship
program. Additionally, the city also agreed
[[link removed]]
to remove racially discriminatory eligibility provisions in a related
program that provides grants to educators. The City Council approved
the settlement on January 11.

In April 2021, we and AEF filed an _amici curiae_ brief
[[link removed]]
in support of
Students for Fair Admissions’ (SFA) petition for a _writ of
certiorari
[[link removed]
to the U.S. Supreme Court, challenging a decision of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit upholding Harvard College’s race-based
affirmative action admissions program (_Students for Fair Admission v.
President & Fellows of Harvard College_
[[link removed]]
(No. 20-1199)).

In March 2021, we filed an _amici curiae_ brief
[[link removed]]
with AEF in a companion case, in support of SFA’s petition for a
_writ of certiorari
[[link removed]
to the Supreme Court challenging a decision of the Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit, which upheld the race-based admissions program
at the University of North Carolina (UNC) (_Students for Fair
Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, et al._
[[link removed]]
(No. 21-707)). The amici brief asked the court to no longer allow
“universities to defend race-based admissions programs by relying
upon schools’ purported educational needs for increased
diversity.”

In January 2022, the Supreme Court agreed to review
[[link removed]]
both
decisions.

The Allied Educational Foundation is a charitable and educational
foundation dedicated to improving the quality of life through
education. In furtherance of that goal, the Foundation has engaged in
a number of projects, which include educational and health conferences
domestically and abroad. AEF has partnered frequently with Judicial
Watch to fight government and judicial corruption and to promote a
return to ethics and morality in the nation’s public life.

JUDICIAL WATCH, AEF CHALLENGE FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL RACE-BASED
ADMISSIONS

A public school system in Virginia is determined to admit certain
students, Black and Hispanic, on the basis of their race and deny
others, Asian Americans, for the same reason. Again, this is
flagrantly unconstitutional.

We filed an _amici curiae_ (friend of the court) brief along with the
Allied Educational Foundation (AEF) opposing the race-based admissions
for nationally-known public high school in Fairfax County. Our brief
supports the Coalition for Thomas Jefferson High School in its
challenge to the policy (_Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School
Board et al.
[[link removed]]
_(No. 22-1280)).

We ask the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to
affirm a lower court decision
[[link removed]]
finding that Fairfax County Public Schools’ (FCPS) race-based
admissions policy is unconstitutional because of its improper
considerations of race.

We argue that the trial court cited ample evidence showing that the
race-based admissions policies were developed with invidious
discriminatory intent:

As the court recounted, less than two weeks following the death of
George Floyd, TJ’s principal Ann Bonitatibus emailed the entire TJ
community proclaiming that the demographics of TJ “do not reflect
the racial composition in FCPS [Fairfax County Public Schools].” …
The next day an FCPS Board member emailed a local legislature,
describing her “anger and disappointment” regarding
underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic students and predicting
there would be “intentional action forthcoming” from FCPS ... The
record showed that Board members admonished Superintendent Braband
that any forthcoming policy change needed to be “explicit in how we
are going to address the under-representation of Black and Hispanic
students.” ... Later, at a public meeting, another Board member
explained that “in looking at what has happened to George Floyd,”
FCPS must now “recognize the unacceptable low numbers of African
Americans that have been accepted by TJ.”
We further argue that Fairfax County Public Schools violated the
Equal Protections clause by attempting to add their preferred races to
schools instead of created an honest balance:

But the truth is that FCPS [Fairfax County Public Schools] was not
interested in improving TJ’s diversity – TJ’s student body was
already diverse. Rather, FCPS sought to change the racial mix by
increasing the representation of underrepresented, preferred
minorities (Blacks and Hispanics) to the disadvantage of other
minorities (Asian Americans). To that end, an FCPS Board member
declared that it “need[ed] to be explicit in how [it was] going to
address the under-representation of Black and Hispanic students.”
We also argue:

[Fairfax County Public Schools] makes the incredible claim that it
enacted the new policy without knowing the effect it would have on
TJ’s student admissions and, as a result, there can be no
discriminatory intent. It is quite remarkable that FCPS contends it
adopted a new admissions policy for the country’s top public high
school without any understanding as to the impact it would have on
students. This claim is even more incredible considering that the
policy change was prompted by the Board’s response to the civil
upheaval following George Floyd’s murder and after intense pressure
by state officials to improve the racial balance of TJ’s admissions.
It is certainly a far cry from the “explicit” response promised by
FCPS Board members.

***

FCPS cannot contend both that it was ignorant as to the effects of the
policy and that it knowingly enacted the policy “in spite of” the
impact it would have on Asian American applicants. Moreover … here
there was evidence in the record that the policy was enacted
“because it would accomplish the collateral goal of” reducing
Asian American representation in TJ’s admissions.

OBAMA ‘DIAPER DISPARITY’ PLAN GETS $8 MILLION DESPITE
CONGRESSIONAL OPPOSITION

The “nanny state” is now literal. Your tax dollars will be spent
to combat “diaper disparity” and close a national “diaper
divide.” This, despite the fact that the Congress has consistently
opposed this giveaway, as our _Corruption Chronicles_ blog reports
[[link removed]].


Though Congress has repeatedly denied laws to give needy families
government-subsidized diapers—in addition to free medical care and
food—the Biden administration is quietly allocating millions of
dollars to the cause originally funded by the Obama administration to
end a pandemic of “diaper disparity.” A Health and Human Services
(HHS) division known as Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
Office of Community Services (OCS) is doling out $8 million
[[link removed]]
to provide
diapers and diapering supplies through government distribution
programs for families with low incomes. The program is officially
known as Diaper Distribution Demonstration and Research Pilot (DDDRP)
and it aims to provide diapers on a consistent basis. “One in three
families in the U.S. with diaper-age children report having unmet
diaper need,” according to the grant announcement. “Diaper need is
largely defined as the lack of a sufficient supply of diapers to keep
an infant/toddler clean, dry, and healthy. Infrequent diaper changes
can lead to diaper rashes and urinary tract infections, compromising
the health and well-being of infants and toddlers.”

The lengthy document cites random studies on the impacts of diaper
need, which of course, “disproportionately impacts families with low
incomes and can have long-term, multigenerational effects,”
according to the government. Besides the detrimental health effects on
the infant, the studies referenced by HHS found associations between
diaper need and parental stress, which can have negative, compounding
effects on the health and well-being of both caregivers and children.
As an example, the agency writes that childcare providers require an
adequate supply of diapers yet many low-income families cannot afford
a consistent supply. “Therefore, diaper need can prevent infants and
toddlers from being in early care settings, and further exacerbate the
impact of poverty by impeding caregivers’ ability to attend school,
training programs, and/or work consistently,” according to the
health agency. Another study used by HHS to make its case found that
more than half of parents who rely on childcare have missed work
because of an inadequate supply of diapers, which means “access to
diapers represents both a public health concern for the well-being of
children and a source of economic stress for parents and
caretakers.”

The goal of the $8 million DDDRP is to maximize diaper distribution
programs so low-income and “diverse” families can receive
taxpayer-funded diapers on a consistent basis. This will solve many
problems, according to HHS. For instance, the agency claims the great
American diaper giveaway will lower anxiety and depression among
parents, decrease rates of missed days for children in childcare,
reduce family health issues by improving the health of caretakers and
children, increase workforce participation and reduce economic stress
by cutting unemployment. “Other programs providing social supports
to low-income families provide targeted benefits for food assistance,
housing, healthcare, etc., but none of them provide funding for
diapers or diapering supplies,” the HHS document states, adding that
“ongoing diaper support” improves economic stability, reduces
familial stress, and increases parental self-sufficiency.

The push for government subsidized diapers has been met with powerful
congressional resistance for years. Back in 2016, after Congress twice
rejected laws to give needy families free diapers, President Obama
allocated $10 million
[[link removed]]
in taxpayer money to the cause. At the time the White House promoted
the initiative as essential to eradicate a national “diaper
divide” and the stated goal was to abolish “diaper disparity” by
expanding access for American’s poorest families. Obama’s White
House Domestic Policy Director, Cecilia Muñoz, spearheaded the
initiative, asserting diapers are imperative to babies’ health and
“no family should have to choose between keeping their babies
healthy and keeping the lights or heat on.” Months earlier Congress
resoundingly rejected the second measure (Hygiene Assistance for
Families of Infants and Toddlers Act) in four years to grant poor
families government-subsidized diapers. Years earlier similar
legislation (Diaper Investment and Aid to Promote Economic Recovery
Act) also got slammed in Congress.

More recently legislation to provide free diapers has also failed to
advance in Congress. The latest, End Diaper Need Act of 2021, has
stalled in both the House and Senate since early last year. The
measure aims to appropriate $200 million annually to provide diapers
and diapering supplies for low-income families.
Until next week …



[Contribute]
[[link removed]]


<a
href="[link removed]"
target="_blank"><img alt="WU01"
src="[link removed]"
style="width:100%; height:auto;" /></a>

[32x32x1]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x2]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

[32x32x3]
[[link removed]]

Judicial Watch, Inc.
425 3rd St Sw Ste 800
Washington, DC 20024

202.646.5172



© 2017 - 2022, All Rights Reserved
Manage Email Subscriptions
[[link removed]]
|
Unsubscribe
[[link removed]]

View in browser
[[link removed]]