Constitutional Issue and Details of the Case
The constitutional issue that I am going to discussed is based on the case of a Caucasian female, Abigail Fisher. She applied for the University of Texas (UT), and it is important to mention that the was not a part of the top ten percent of the class, so she had to strive for admission with other undergraduates who also were in the top ten percent of their classes (Fisher v. Univ. of TX at Austin, 2013). Nonetheless, the UT disregarded Fisher’s submission.
Subsequently, Fisher claimed that the UT dismissed her application based on her race and decided to file a suit against the university. Fisher supported her claim by the fact that the equal protection clause was violated (being an integral part of the Fourteenth Amendment) (Fisher v. Univ. of TX at Austin, 2013). In response, the UT claimed that their strategy was to guarantee diversity and did not agree that they violated any of Fisher’s rights. The district court’s and the Court of Appeals’ decisions were in favor of the UT. Taking that into account, Fisher decided to file another complaint and challenge the decision of the Court of Appeals in the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
The Impact of the Key Arguments on the Major Parties Involved in the Case
The impact of this case on the criminal justice system is substantial due to the act of consideration of race. The judicial system was affected by the previous legal instances of coping with the admissions involving minorities (Collins & Ringhand, 2013). The overall decision was based on the standard investigation of the case and its acquiescence with the Fourteenth Amendment. In this case, the problem consisted in the fact that the Supreme Court had to identify if the policy served exclusively as an adjustment to the governmental interests. All the parties involved in the case concluded that if the policy was not compliant with the previous standards, the commission did not have the right to consider race to be one of the factors that influenced the process of admission (Collins & Ringhand, 2013). The issue of diversity impacted the ultimate decision of the Supreme Court and the judicial system in general. It was later claimed that the lower courts did not collect adequate evidence concerning the case and the decision was overturned.
The Influence of the Court Decision on the Criminal Justice Policy
This unique case caught the attention of the whole country and its impact on justice policy standards is evident. Automatic admissions were revised, and the University of Texas renewed its diversity strategy to fully comply with the legislation (Marion & Oliver, 2012). After all, high-performing students saved their right to gain admission based on the application process that involves the consideration of ethnic factors. At the same time, the criminal justice policy was successfully transformed, and the universities all over the country reviewed their admission policies.
The Effect of the Decision on Social Justice in the United States of America
The decision of the Supreme Court concerning Fisher’s lawsuit changed the way the “Top Ten” program was perceived. The problems of social justice inherent in the legal system of the United States were emphasized by Fisher’s case, and it allowed the plaintiff to win the fight for affirmative action (Gaines, 2014). Nonetheless, the outcomes of this decision are still considered to be unexpected as the principles of this program are rather flexible. The most important aspect of this case is the ability of the affirmative action supporters to keep the legacy of the UT race-based policy alive.
References
Collins, P. M., & Ringhand, L. A. (2013). Supreme Court confirmation hearings and constitutional change. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Fisher v. Univ. of TX at Austin, 570 U.S. (2013)
Gaines, L. K. (2014). Homeland security: A new criminal justice mandate. In S. L. Mallicoat & C. L. Gardiner (Eds.), Criminal justice policy (pp. 67-87). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Marion, N. E., & Oliver, W. M. (2012). The public policy of crime and criminal justice (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.