For reprint rights or to purchase a copy of your Daily Journal photo, email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices or call 949-702-5390.

To buy more copies, call 866-531-1492 or email subscribe@dailyjournal.com
This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.
Subscribe to the Daily Journal for access to Daily Appellate Reports, Verdicts, Judicial Profiles and more...

U.S. Supreme Court,
Constitutional Law,
Civil Rights,
Appellate Practice

Jun. 24, 2016

Weekly Appellate Report #9: Fisher, Encino, Texas

Guests Anna-Rose Mathieson (Cal. Appellate Law Group) and Professor Bill Hing (USF Law) discuss three of this week's consequential U.S. Supreme Court rulings, which regard affirmative action, immigration and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act

This Friday's episode considers three important rulings that issued from the country's high court, in its penultimate week before summer recess.

Anna-Rose Mathieson, a partner with the California Appellate Law Group, and a former U.S. Supreme Court law clerk joins the podcast to discuss perhaps the court's most significant ruling of the term, Fisher v. University of Texas, a case involving affirmative action in which the court, by a 4-3 vote, left intact a race-conscious admissions program employed by the school. She'll also discuss Encino Motorcars v. Navarro, a case dealing with whether service advisors at car dealerships must be paid overtime, per the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Next Professor Hing, who directs his school's Immigration and Deportation Defense Clinic, will join the show to discuss the court's four-four affirmance order in U.S. v. Texas, which essentially rings a death knell for two immigration reform measures introduced by President Obama in 2014.

Remember CLE credit is available for listeners of the podcast; follow the link below to receive an hour of credit.
#323941

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390

Send a letter to the editor:

Email: letters@dailyjournal.com

Enewsletter Sign-up

Related Content

Labor Law

Navarro v. Encino Motorcars LLC

Service advisors successful in reinstating overtime compensation claim against car dealership on ground that they do not fall within exemption from overtime compensation requirement.

Constitutional Law

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

University's race-conscious undergraduate admission plan upheld as lawful under Equal Protection Clause.

United States v. Texas

1. Whether a State that voluntarily provides a subsidy to all aliens with deferred action has Article III standing and a justiciable cause of action under the Administrative Procedure Act...



By using our website, you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. You can learn more about how we use cookies by reviewing our Privacy Policy here.