Talk:Fisher v. University of Texas (2016)

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 27 April 2016 by reviewer SwisterTwister (talk · contribs).

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Rachel Multer Michalewicz

Rachel Multer Michalewicz is mentioned once as the second plaintiff in the case, but then isn't mentioned again. While information is provided about Fisher's grades and scores, nothing is said about the other plaintiff. Ileanadu (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fisher v. University of Texas (2016). 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

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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) 17:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar problem

Alito questioned how "a court ever be able to determine whether stereotypes have been adequately destroyed"

The above is not a grammatical sentence, though the quoted section is accurate. Perhaps change to:

Alito questioned how a court could "ever be able to determine whether stereotypes have been adequately destroyed"

Michael Hurwicz (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 30 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Upriscilla (article contribs).

Scalia's role in the case

The decision in this case was rendered 4-3, with 7 justices participating. The current infobox only lists 8 justices, the 7 who took part in the decision, and Kagan, who recused herself. I was going to add justice Scalia (who passed away shortly before the decision was rendered) to the "Not participating" part of the infobox.

Unfortunately this leads to the infobox saying, "Kagan and Scalia took no part in the consideration or decision of this case." That's technically not correct; Scalia indeed did not take part in the decision of the case (as he predeceased) but he did take part in the oral arguments and (presumably) the deliberation between the justices. (The linked source includes a re-enactment of the oral argument by dogs, but is a correct audio record).

Is there any way with the infobox to specify why only 8 justices were accounted for without using the "Not present" part? Otherwise the fact that Scalia was deceased at the time first appears halfway down the article (And the fact that he was present in oral arguments is not mentioned at all). Perhaps a line which says something to the effect of "Scalia was present for most of the proceedings, but predeceased before judgement."

Alternatively I understand why one would say there were only 8 justices on the bench at the time judgement was rendered, therefore it should only show 8 justices. However I point again to the fact that a viewer will be confused why only 8 justices were mentioned (instead of the typical 9) and that Scalia was involved for most of the history and proceedings of the case.

For now I've simply added Scalia into the "Not Participating" section. BabbleOnto (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]