We recently prepared this one-page summary of the Center for Equal Opportunity’s activities over the past year, and thought that we ought to share it with you.
2013-2014 CEO Activities Report
In addition to our speaking (on campuses, coordinating other conservative groups, and with a wide variety of media) and writing (in National Review Online and other magazines, newspapers, and publications), here are just a few highlights of CEO’s work this past year. We continue to get unmatched bang for the buck.
Schuette v. BAMN – The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit had held that Michigan’s Proposal 2 violates the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Proposal 2 was a ballot initiative that amended the state constitution to provide that state and local government agencies (including public universities) in Michigan “shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” CEO was involved in this case for a long time, first in the lower courts and then in the Supreme Court. In fact, we helped get Proposal 2 passed in the first place, by releasing studies that documented how heavily racial and ethnic preferences were being used at Michigan public universities. We joined and helped write numerous briefs — in the lower courts (twice), then urging the Court to take the case, and finally on the merits. We participated in a moot court for the State of Michigan counsel and provided comments on the state’s brief. And we won: The Court upheld Proposal 2. Now we’re explaining how other states can follow suit.
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project (and Fighting “Disparate Impact” Generally) – Another Supreme Court case in which CEO has been involved this year presents the question whether “disparate impact” causes of action may be brought under the Fair Housing Act. The Court has recognized but never decided this important issue — that is, whether a policy that is neutral by its terms, in its intent, and in its application can still be illegally discriminatory because it has disproportionate racial effects (for example, suppose a landlord won’t rent to people with felony convictions for drug-dealing). We filed an amicus brief successfully urging the Supreme Court to take this case, are at work on a brief on the merits, and have been advising party counsel. This is the third case and the third term in a row we have played a key role in such litigation. More generally, we have played a key role in bringing greater public visibility to abusive “disparate impact” lawsuits and regulations by the Obama administration. Papers here we suggested and co-wrote have recently been published by the Heritage Foundation and circulated to legislators and litigators.
Fisher v. University of Texas – This case challenging racial preferences in student admissions relied heavily on a legal theory we developed; we filed an amicus brief with the court of appeals and were the first to flag for media the opposing Obama administration brief there, advised and participated in a moot court for Fisher’s counsel, filed Supreme Court amicus briefs (at the cert stage and on the merits – highlighting CEO’s admissions studies), helped coordinate other amicus briefs, and did extensive speaking, writing, and “truth squad” work. This year we have worked to ensure that the case is interpreted and applied in as favorable a way as possible, by writing and speaking about it, meeting with litigators and advocacy groups, critiquing the Obama administration’s “guidance,” and sending out a multiple FOIA requests to ensure that universities are meeting the criteria in Justice Kennedy’s opinion. Most recently, we joined and helped write an amicus brief urging en banc review by the Fifth Circuit, and advised party counsel on additional lawsuits (based in part on our studies).
Federal Register – We review this every day and file formal comments several times a week on proposed rules and regulations. We have succeeded in removing racially preferential language in a wide variety of programs.
Lawmaking (With and Without Congress) – Consistent with our nonprofit status, we continue to play a key role in publicizing objectionable legislation (in particular, this past year, post–Shelby County voting bills) — and, relatedly and more and more frequently, executive branch efforts to “legislate” without Congress. For example, we recently helped publicize a letter from the conservative members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to President Obama, regarding his efforts to declare by executive order that Native Hawaiians are an Indian tribe; the letter (and our own formal comments) pointed out the unconstitutionality of this measure, and that the reason the administration is pursuing this is because of Congress’s refusal to pass legislation in this area.
Contracting – We have sent memoranda this year to a wide variety of local governments, warning them not to use racial preferences; we are also advising various groups and attorneys regarding litigation in this area; and have urged Hill staff to commission a GAO study on the (legally dubious) use of such preferences.
