The lawsuit titled Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College was brought before the Supreme Court of the United States. The plaintiff, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., challenged the admissions systems used by Harvard College and the University of North Carolina (UNC), alleging that they violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Both Harvard and UNC employ a highly selective admissions process that considers various factors, including race. Students for Fair Admissions argued that these race-based admissions programs violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause. After separate bench trials, both admissions programs were found permissible under the Equal Protection Clause and the Court's precedents. The First Circuit affirmed the decision in the Harvard case, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. In the UNC case, the Supreme Court granted certiorari before judgment. However, the Supreme Court ultimately held that Harvard's and UNC's admissions programs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court rejected UNC's argument that Students for Fair Admissions lacked standing and had jurisdiction to consider the merits of the claims. The Court emphasized that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits distinctions of law based on race or color and guarantees equal protection under the law. The Court acknowledged that race was being used as a determinative factor in the admissions processes of both Harvard and UNC, which violated the constitutional principle of equal protection. The lawsuit argues that Harvard's admissions process discriminates against Asian-American applicants by using race as a factor in admissions decisions. It references previous Supreme Court decisions and argues that Harvard's admissions process goes beyond the limits set by those cases. The lawsuit also raises concerns about the use of race in admissions programs, including illegitimate stereotyping and negative discrimination against racial groups. It argues that the admissions programs fail to meet the requirements of strict scrutiny and violate the Equal Protection Clause's commands regarding the use of race. The lawsuit disputes the universities' interpretation of the 25-year expectation mentioned in a previous Supreme Court case and argues that the admissions programs lack a logical endpoint. In conclusion, the lawsuit claims that Harvard's and UNC's admissions programs violate the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause.

Full Screen

United States of America v. Robert Hunter Biden

Summary: Hunter Biden is currently embroiled in a lawsuit, accused of purchasing a Colt Cobra revolver in October 2018 while allegedly using illegal substances. Despite denying drug use on the necessary paperwork, if found guilty, he could face a maximum of 25 years in prison along with substantial fines. Biden's defense team contends that the charges are politically driven, asserting that Biden's temporary possession of an unloaded firearm did not constitute a public safety risk. They intend to contest the charges, leveraging an agreement with the prosecution, recent federal court decisions, and potential Second Amendment defenses. This case could potentially ignite wider discussions about Second Amendment rights, especially as the Supreme Court is poised to deliberate on a related issue concerning gun ownership for individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders. Opinions are divided among political and legislative figures, with some speculating that advocates of the Second Amendment might oppose the law that prohibits gun ownership for drug users.