After a brief interlude for an episode of LGBTQ+ rights, Elise is back with a second episode on the affirmative action decision, joined by Professor Richard Ford of Stanford Law School. Professor Ford offers his take on many of the same questions we put forward to Professor Stulberg: Is the diversity rationale still alive? What will the college admissions landscape look like after this decision? And how will socioeconomic status be used as an attempt to maintain diversity? He also walked Elise through the nuances of the majority opinion — namely, the Court refused to overturn Grutter and Bakke, leaving potential room for schools to continue considering race on an individual basis. Finally, Professor Ford spoke to the future of legacy admissions and what the optimal response to this decision would be from institutions of higher education. Cases mentioned: Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (2023) Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) Further reading: "Bias against Asian-American students is real. Affirmative action isn’t the problem." (Stacey J. Lee and Kevin K. Kumashiro, Vox) "The SCOTUS decision on affirmative action in colleges, explained." (Fabiola Cineas and Ian Millhiser, Vox) "The Supreme Court’s ban on affirmative action means colleges will struggle to meet goals of diversity and equal opportunity" (Adewale A. Maye, Economic Policy Institute)

As a brief interlude to coverage of the Court's affirmative action decision, Hannah and Elise sat down with Joshua Block, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU, to discuss the legal battles to stop anti-LGBTQ+ legislation and the implications of the Court's recent decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. This is a long overdue conversation: LGBTQ+ rights are increasingly under attack across the country, but it is children and students who are most frequently the target of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation, including attacks on their right to learn about sexual orientation and gender identity in schools, their right to read diverse books, and their right to gender-affirming health care. And the conversation is especially timely given the Court's ruling in 303 Creative, holding that Colorado’s anti-discrimination law violated a designer’s right to free speech by requiring her to design a website for a same-sex couple (a form of creative expression, the Court said). Mentioned in this episode: 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023) Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) L.W. v. Skrmetti (Sixth Circuit decision lifting injunction against Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care) Further reading: "Advocates plan for battle as DeSantis preps ‘Don’t Say Gay’ expansion" (Brooke Migdon and Lexi Lonas, The Hill) "The Supreme Court Could Chop Away at Anti-Discrimination Law Based on Literally Nothing" (Matt Ford, The New Republic) "The Supreme Court’s Disorienting Elevation of Religion" (Kate Shaw, The New York Times)

Two weeks ago, the Court struck down race-conscious affirmative action in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard University. In the first of many episodes to come, Elise and Hannah break down the opinion with Lisa Stulberg, a professor of sociology at NYU's Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development. Chief Justice Roberts' opinion answered some of our questions — universities will no longer be able to consider race as they historically have, and this Court no longer sees diversity as a compelling enough reason for affirmative action. But it also raised SO many questions about the future of college admissions and the higher education landscape: Will colleges use socioeconomic status as a proxy for race? Why do the justices fundamentally disagree on the role of racism in American society? What will the Common Application look like next fall? Elise, Hannah, and Professor Stulberg weighed all of those questions, and more, in this episode, so take a listen. And they'll be back in two weeks with more questions (and maybe, more answers). Mentioned in this episode: Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College (2023) Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke (1978) California Proposition 209 Further reading: "Research and Analyses on the Impact of Proposition 209 in California" (University of California) "The Living Memory of Derek Bell" (The Harvard Crimson) "The Other Way the Supreme Court is Nullifying Precedent" (Politico)

It's been a while! In the latest episode of the High School SCOTUS podcast, we're back with a wide-ranging conversation between Elise and Professor Jonathan Glater of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. Professor Glater is an expert on all things higher education and student loan debt; he is also the Faculty Director of the Center for Consumer Law & Economic Justice at Berkeley. He joined the podcast to discuss two pending cases before the Court, Biden v. Nebraska and US Dept. of Education v. Brown, both of which consider the constitutionality of President Biden's student loan relief policy. But Elise and Professor Glater also took a step out of the legal minutiae to talk about how student debt became a political flashpoint, and why access to higher education has become so culturally and socially divisive in today’s society. Mentioned in this episode: Biden v. Nebraska US Dept. of Education v. Brown Further reading: "U.S. Supreme Court's 'major questions' test may doom Biden student debt plan" (Reuters) "The Supreme Court’s student loans case is about more than student loans" (CNN) "5 key moments from the Supreme Court showdown over Biden’s student debt relief" (Politico)

On the latest episode of the High School SCOTUS Podcast, Elise sits down with Rebecca Nagle, the host of the This Land podcast from Crooked Media and a powerful activist for indigenous rights. They spoke primarily about two monumental Supreme Court cases, McGirt v. Oklahoma, a 2020 case that considered whether Creek Nation land qualified as a “federal reservation,” and Haaland v. Brackeen, a case currently before the Court that weighs the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act. Also included: the hidden record in the Brackeen case, Rebecca's take on Justice Gorsuch's progressive stance in tribal law cases, and the failure of the media to properly cover Native American issues.  Mentioned in this episode: This Land Podcast McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020) Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta (2022) Brackeen v. Haaland (current) "'Complete, dysfunctional chaos': Oklahoma reels after Supreme Court ruling on Indian tribes" (The Washington Post) Further reading: "Where Is Oklahoma Getting Its Numbers From in Its Supreme Court Case?" (The Atlantic) "Texas, Big Oil Lawyers Target Native Children in a Bid to End Tribal Sovereignty" (Lakota People's Law Project)

In the latest episode of the High School SCOTUS Podcast, Elise and Hannah sat down with Julia Olson, founder and executive director of Our Children's Trust, a non-profit, public interest law firm that provides legal services to youth in an effort to secure their legal rights to a safe climate. We discuss Julia's passion for law and environmentalism, her realization that she could use her legal ability to fight the climate crisis and protect the next generation, her monumental litigation in Juliana v. United States, and her advice to young people who are desperate for change. Julia does ground-breaking work every single day, charting unmarked territory as she works to protect the fundamental rights of youth. Mentioned in this episode: Juliana v. United States West Virginia v. EPA (2022) Alec L. v. McCarthy (2014) Further reading: Akin Gump: "'Major Questions?' Supreme Court Decision in Climate Case Sends Ripples Across the Regulatory Landscape" Cornell Legal Information Institute: "Standing" Scientific American: "First 'Kids' Climate Trial Will Be Heard in Montana" Forbes: "Youth climate plaintiffs cite novel precedent: SCOTUS's landmark abortion ruling"

In the fifth episode of the affirmative action series, Elise and Hannah spoke with Professor Richard Sander of the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law about his perspective on the detrimental effects of racial preferences in higher education. They also discussed the importance of considering and evaluating empirical evidence related to affirmative action, and what he noticed at the Supreme Court's oral arguments on Oct. 31. Professor Sander has written extensively on the issue of race conscious policies, especially in the University of California higher education system, and began his career studying housing segregation. We hope this conversation will shed light on arguments in opposition to affirmative action and foster substantive debate and discussion on such a contentious topic.  Mentioned in this episode: Fisher v. University of Texas (2013)  Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (2016) California Proposition 209, Affirmative Action Initiative (1996) Further reading: The Harvard Crimson: "Harvard's Donor and Legacy Preferences Come Under Fire at Supreme Court Oral Arguments" Inside Higher Ed: "U of California gets more diverse without SATs" Ed Source: "Students at California's top-tier universities don't reflect state's racial and ethnic diversity, says Urban Institute study"

In the fourth episode of their affirmative action series, Elise and Hannah sit down with Professor Lisa Stulberg, who teaches the sociology of education at New York University. Their wide-ranging conversation included discussion of the charter school debate, school choice and desegregation in K-12, and America's misconception that merit is neutral. They also found time to talk about how our society inflates the impact of race-conscious policies, and Professor Stulberg's perspective on why diversity is so crucial in higher education. Professor Stulberg is an expert in the field, and this episode is really worth a listen. Mentioned in this episode:  Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1) (1954) Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (2) (1954) California Proposition 209 (1996) Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) The Big Test: The Secret of the American Meritocracy by Nicholas Lehman Further reading: Harvard Ed. Magazine: "The Battle Over Charter Schools" The Atlantic: "The College-Admissions Merit Myth"

In the third episode of the affirmative action series, Elise talks with Professor Richard Ford about reframing affirmative action and considering how social and cultural perceptions of race-conscious policies have overstated their ramifications. They also discuss Professor Ford's time as a high school journalist, his experience as a housing policy consultant, and his predictions for what will come after the Supreme Court's rulings in this year's affirmative action cases. Mentioned in this episode: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007) Oral Argument in Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina Oral Argument in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College Further reading: The University of Chicago Law Review Online: "Affirmative-Action Jurisprudence Reflects American Racial Animosity but Is Also Unhappy in Its Own Special Way" The Chronicle of Higher Education: "How Affirmative Action Was Derailed By Diversity" Vox: "The Supreme Court discovers that ending affirmative action is hard" The New Yorker: "The Inherent Contradictions in the Affirmative-Action Debate"

In the second episode of their series on affirmative action, Elise and Hannah sit down with Professor Jonathan Masur of the University of Chicago Law School to discuss his study "Assessing Affirmative Action's Diversity Rationale," written with Professors Justin Driver, Kyle Rozema, and Adam Chilton. The study analyzed how citations to law review journals changed in the years after implementing a diversity policy as a microcosm to empirically measure the impact of diversity in higher education. Listen to the episode to hear more about their findings and the study's relevance to the cultural and social debate around affirmative action. Mentioned in this episode: "Assessing Affirmative Action's Diversity Rationale" DeFungis v. Odegaard (1974) Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007) Further reading: The New York Times: "As Harvard Case Looms at Supreme Court, Study Tests Value of Diversity" The Atlantic: "Why Sandra Day O'Connor Saved Affirmative Action" NPR: "Two Justices Debate The Doctrine of Colorblindness"