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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
 | 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:
|  |
Updates
editTHIS 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)
This article needs to be updated68.15.115.179 (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC) {{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
Split the article?
editThis 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)
Split the article
editI 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!). Ssrprotege (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
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. 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) 21:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Is the Louis D. Brandeis Center given undue weight in this article?
editWhy 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)
- 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)