Stanford Law School

• The review comes after Dave Yost, the state’s attorney general, advised administrators in a call that using race as a factor to award funds may be unconstitutional.
• The day after the Supreme Court’s decision, he had signaled that schools should clamp down on race-conscious programs.
• He warned that “disguised” race-conscious admissions policies are still race-conscious admissions policies.

Targeting racial criteria

• Officials at the universities of Kentucky and Missouri eliminated consideration of race in scholarships and grants.
• This raises a question that goes beyond Ohio: Are scholarships that use race as part of their criteria a thing of the past?
• To figure that out, administrators may have to go back to the source: the 2023 Supreme Court decision.

Diversity and the ‘strict scrutiny’ test

• In 2003 and again in 2016, the court ruled that a diverse student body is a compelling interest.
• But in 2023, Harvard and UNC weren’t able to pass the strict scrutiny test.
• But this overlooks two important facts: The Supreme Court did not rule that diversity can never be a compelling state interest or that race can never be considered.
• Even race-conscious admissions aren’t completely off the table – if programs can pass the strict scrutiny test.

• But after the Harvard and UNC decision, even these programs will need to explore other ways to achieve diversity.
• MIT and Stanford Law are among the programs already using criteria such as income, ZIP code and civic engagement to maintain diversity.

More challenges ahead

• In contrast, some campus leaders and lawyers argue that the court’s decision should be limited to race-conscious admissions.
• They argue it should not include other programs where race might be used as a factor.

Tips for prospective students and their parents

• Students can also take the following steps: • Stay informed: Follow the news to find out whether changes in state laws or policies will affect scholarship opportunities.
• • Talk to financial aid administrators: Connect with advisers in the school’s financial aid office to learn how they interpret the Harvard/UNC decision.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

• BRUSSELS, March 19, 2024 /PRNewswire/ -- Edward Taelman has joined Crowell & Moring's Brussels office as a partner.
• Taelman also advises clients on non-contentious matters in relation to IP, including licensing agreements, franchise agreements, and research collaboration agreements.
• His trademark experience helps cement our office as one of Belgium's IP powerhouses, offering comprehensive advice in every field of IP."
• Taelman, who joins the firm from Allen & Overy, has been recognized as a "rising star" by Legal 500, Managing IP, IP Stars, and WTR 1000.

• "The addition of Ruben as our General Counsel represents a significant milestone for FibroBiologics in its journey as a publicly traded company," said Mr. O'Heeron.
• He most recently served as Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary at AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (n/k/a Talphera, Inc.).
• Prior to his role at AcelRx, Mr. Garcia served as Senior Corporate Counsel and Assistant Secretary for Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical Inc. Mr. Garcia began his legal career at Vinson & Elkins L.L.P.
• Forward-looking statements include information concerning FibroBiologics' advancement of its pipelines and the role to be played by, and impact of, the General Counsel.

• In Due Process as American Democracy, Redish develops a new approach to procedural due process, grounded in foundational precepts of American political theory.
• Redish argues that American political thought comes from an adversarial understanding of democracy where individuals need to protect their own interests, because no one else can be trusted to do so.
• Redish writes that a skeptical vision of democracy informs the separation of powers and operates as the protector of liberal democracy.
• When applied to procedural due process, adversary democracy dictates skepticism of both judges and those who seek unilaterally to represent the individuals' interests in court.