A Liberal Supreme Court Term? Hardly.

In the last week, conservatives lost major cases at the Supreme Court on issues like fair housing, healthcare, nonpartisan redistricting, and marriage equality.  Some are questioning whether the Roberts Court is really all that conservative.  The New York Times’s The Upshot trumpeted The Roberts Court’s Surprising Move Leftward, writing that this term had a greater percentage of liberal decisions than any since 1969.

But this is no liberal court.  It hasn’t even been all that much of a liberal term, certainly not in the way that we saw decades ago.

Take the fair housing case, for instance: Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project.  There was unanimity among all 11 circuit courts that had considered the issue that a practice that has an unjustified discriminatory impact can violate the federal Fair Housing Act even when a discriminatory purpose can’t be proved.  Congress had amended the law with this type of “disparate impact” clearly in mind.  Ordinarily, under these circumstances, the Supreme Court never would have heard a case claiming that the Act does not allow for disparate impact cases.  But this is the Roberts Court, and four Justices (the minimum needed to grant certiorari) were clearly hungry to change the law.  Rather than moving the law in a progressive direction, the 5-4 result simply fought off a fringe right-wing legal attack against a long-established civil rights law.  Even so, this case was only one vote away from going in the other direction.

Similarly, King v. Burwell – the Affordable Care Act subsidies case – hardly marks new frontiers in progressive jurisprudence.  The plaintiffs’ attack against the law was laughably weak, and there was no circuit split in the lower courts to resolve.  That the Supreme Court took this case at all was both absurd and ominous.  While the Court rejected the anti-Obamacare activists’ claim 6-3, it is hard to imagine an earlier Court not ruling 9-0, or even refusing to take the case in the first place.  The majority opinion left the law exactly as it was intended and understood when it was passed.

Yesterday’s ruling in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission upholding that state’s nonpartisan redistricting commission shows the same dynamic.  Arizona voters adopted this reform 15 years ago, in response to the damage done by partisanship in the drawing of district lines.  But conservative politicians sought to undo this reform and launched a constitutional attack they thought would find favor in the Roberts Court.  They lost by one vote yesterday, as a 5-4 majority upheld the status quo.

Similarly, in Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar, this term saw the Court entertain a conservative attack against a common-sense campaign finance law for judicial elections, one that prohibits state judicial nominees from directly soliciting campaign contributions.  Since the Roberts Court has gone out of its way to undo or undermine longstanding legal precedent supporting efforts to regulate money in politics, many thought the challenge would be successful.  However, by one vote, the Supreme Court chose to uphold the Florida law, one that applies in many other states, as well.

The Court’s four moderates are sometimes able to garner a majority to reject right wing attacks on the law.  That is a far cry from the liberal Court terms of an earlier era, when the Justices expanded the frontiers of liberty and equality, making the stirring promises of the Constitution real for millions of people.  Those were decisions that empowered Americans to vote and effect their will through fair elections, that recognized the essential dignity and liberty of the individual, and that ensured that civil rights statutes were interpreted in ways to carry out Congress’s intent.

So no, the Supreme Court did not just complete a liberal term.  Progressives breathed a sigh of relief after a number of cases this term when the Court didn’t accept invitations to lurch even further to the right.  And the Court did take one important progressive step in affirmatively ruling for marriage equality, although only by a 5-4 vote.  But there is much more work to do if we really want to see a liberal Supreme Court term.

PFAW Foundation

Three Final 5-4 Rulings Show Importance of Supreme Court in 2016 Elections

The Supreme Court issued its last three opinions of the term this morning.  All three were important.  All three were decided 5-4.  And all three are reminders that no matter what issue you care about, the Supreme Court is a critically important issue in the 2016 elections.

In Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, Justice Ginsburg wrote for a 5-4 majority upholding that state’s voter-passed redistricting reform, in which a commission rather than the state legislature resets district boundaries after each census.  She wrote:

The people of Arizona turned to the initiative to curb the practice of gerrymandering and, thereby, to ensure that Members of Congress would have “an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people.” The Federalist No. 57, at 350 (J. Madison). In so acting, Arizona voters sought to restore “the core principle of republican government,” namely, “that the voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around.” … The Elections Clause does not hinder that endeavor.

In Michigan v. EPA, Justice Scalia wrote for a 5-4 majority striking down EPA regulations of mercury and other toxins emitted from certain types of electric power plants.  EPA studied the issue and determined that these emissions needed to be regulated.  Then, in a separate proceeding, it adopted regulations, carefully taking the costs of regulating into consideration in crafting its rules.  Notwithstanding that, the five conservative Justices ruled that the EPA had been required to consider costs at the start, in its initial decision on whether regulating these particular emissions was appropriate and necessary.

In Glossip v. Gross, the Court, in an opinion written by Justice Alito, ruled that it is not unconstitutionally cruel and unusual to execute someone by lethal injection using midazolam as the initial drug.  That particular drug is supposed to ensure that the person doesn’t feel burning, searing pain when the follow-up drugs causing death are given.  There is evidence that the drug does nothing of the sort, so that people endure what Justice Sotomayor in her dissent calls “the chemical equivalent of being burned at the stake.”

These decisions join a host of other 5-4 rulings this term, including

And let us not forget some of the most notorious 5-4 cases of recent years:

  • Citizens United (opening the flood gates to untold amounts of money in politics);
  • Hobby Lobby (upholding a corporation’s “religious liberty” right to exempt itself from a law protecting women’s health);
  • Shelby County (striking down the heart of the Voting Rights Act).

By 2018, four Justices will be in their 80s, meaning there may be several vacancies during the next president’s term.  Any replacements could cement a hard-right conservative majority that would extend cases like Citizens United and Shelby County and seek to limit the rights of LGBT people that were gained in Obergefell.  Or we could see the end of what our affiliate PFAW Foundation Senior Fellow Jamie Raskin has called The Citizens United Era, so the Court will no longer bend logic and twist the law in order to rule in favor of powerful and corporate interests.

No matter what issue you care about – money in politics, LGBT equality, voting rights, women’s health, the environment, defendants’ rights, the death penalty – the president elected in 2016 will make all the difference, as will the Senate that will either confirm or block the president’s nominees.

On Election Day, it is the Supreme Court that will be on the ballot.

PFAW

A Historic Day for Liberty, Equality, and America

Wow.

The Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.  This day is profoundly American and a testament to our Constitution: Individuals who faced discrimination at the hands of the government turned to the courts to vindicate their rights.  And the Supreme Court did that today, in a ruling that gives justice to the plaintiffs and, in the process, makes real the promises of liberty and equality that are written in our Constitution.

When the American Way works as intended, it is a beautiful thing to see.

As Justice Kennedy describes in his majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, gays and lesbians have for most of American history been scorned, stigmatized, imprisoned, labelled as mentally ill … you name it.  Given the horrific consequences for being openly gay, it is no wonder that for so long, as Kennedy writes, “a truthful declaration by same-sex couples of what was in their hearts had to remain unspoken.”

That is profoundly sad, and it is profoundly unjust.

Fortunately, society has changed over the past few decades.  The Court majority writes:

In the late 20th century, following substantial cultural and political developments, same-sex couples began to lead more open and public lives and to establish families. This development was followed by a quite extensive discussion of the issue in both governmental and private sectors and by a shift in public attitudes toward greater tolerance.

While this is a recent development for lesbian, gay, and bisexual Americans, it is quite a familiar process for America itself.  Indeed, it is the story of America.

This was stated eloquently several years ago when Maryland was debating marriage equality.  The marriage bill’s sponsor, Maryland state senator Rich Madaleno, testified in support of the legislation:

Our state and our nation were founded on principles of fairness and equality. These principles are timeless; unfortunately, their application has not been. Yet every generation of Americans has held out their hand to some who had been left out of the promise of equality – held out their hand and brought them fully into our civil society, saying, “You are not the other. You are us.”

After today’s Supreme Court decision, my place in society as a gay American is profoundly changed as a matter of constitutional law.  I am no longer the other.  I am us.

Today, the system worked.

PFAW Foundation

Protecting Civil Rights from Judicial Attack

To many people’s surprise, the Supreme Court this morning didn’t gut the Fair Housing Act in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project.  Many had feared the far-right conservatives would rule that a practice that has an unjustified discriminatory impact could no longer be judged to violate the FHA unless a discriminatory purpose could be proved.  Such an interpretation would have gone against congressional intent to create a robust legal tool to bring fair housing to everyone in the nation, all 11 circuit courts that have considered the question, and the interpretation of the law by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Despite the absence of a circuit split, and despite the fact that Congress had amended the FHA after those judicial decisions with the clear assumption that such “disparate impact” cases would be generated, the Roberts Court had taken identical cases in 2011 and 2013, but the parties settled before the Court could rule.  But at least four justices – the minimum required for the Court to agree to hear a case – clearly wanted to address this issue.

And now we can be pretty sure who they were: today’s four dissenters (the Chief Justice, and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito).

Fortunately, they did not prevail.  Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy highlighted the vital role played by the Fair Housing Act, both at the time of its passage in 1968 and today, in eliminating “zoning laws and other housing restrictions that function unfairly to exclude minorities from certain neighborhoods without any sufficient justification.”

Much progress remains to be made in our Nation’s continuing struggle against racial isolation.  …  The FHA must play an important part in avoiding the [1968] Kerner Commission’s grim prophecy that “[o]ur Nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white—separate and unequal.” Kerner Commission Report 1.  The Court acknowledges the Fair Housing Act’s continuing role in moving the Nation toward a more integrated society.

For nearly 50 years, the Fair Housing Act has been a critical tool for eliminating discrimination and expanding opportunity to all.  After today, it will remain so.

So much was at stake in this case, and this morning’s 5-4 ruling could easily have gone the other way had one Justice voted differently.  That is much too close for comfort.  Indeed, this second anniversary of the 5-4 Shelby County decision gutting the heart of the Voting Rights Act reminds us that those who value equality and civil rights are too often on the losing side of these 5-4 cases.

PFAW Foundation

Obamacare Comes Out Stronger Than Before

In a decision that surely disappointed far right politicians, a strong 6-3 majority today rejected a pitifully transparent and legally ridiculous effort to destroy Obamacare.

The King v. Burwell plaintiffs claimed that Congress intended to make healthcare insurance subsidies via tax credits available to Americans in certain states (ones where the state exchange was set up by the state itself) but not in others (states where the exchange was set up by the federal government).  Fortunately, six Justices refused to go along with this.

The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice Roberts, and joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.  They acknowledged that the phrase “established by the state,” if completely stripped of all context, could be interpreted to exclude exchanges established by the federal government.  But looking at congressional intent and the structure of the ACA as a whole, they concluded that – of course – Congress did not mean to deny subsidies to Americans in the federal-exchange states.

While the Court upheld the Fourth Circuit’s judgment against the anti-ACA activists, the legal reasoning isn’t exactly the same.  In fact, the Court closes off a future avenue of attack against Obamacare that the Fourth Circuit had left open.

Specifically, the Fourth Circuit had found the phrase in question ambiguous in meaning.  Therefore, it turned to how it was interpreted by the federal agency charged with interpreting it and carrying out its commands – in this case, the Internal Revenue Service.  Under a doctrine called “Chevron deference,” courts generally defer to agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutory commands as long as they are reasonable.  The Fourth Circuit noted that the IRS interprets the ACA to allow subsidies to be made available to people in all states, and it upheld that interpretation as reasonable.

Note that this approach could have left the ACA vulnerable to a future presidential administration proffering a different interpretation – i.e., the ones pushed by the anti-Obamacare plaintiffs and their conservative activist backers.

That threat would seem to be gone.  The Supreme Court noted that the subsidies are a critical component of the congressional plan to reform healthcare, and if it had wanted to delegate a question as critically important as that to a federal agency, it surely would have said so.  So Chevron deference wasn’t even a factor here.

The Court then looked at the statute as a whole and made the only obvious conclusion: Of course Congress did not mean to deny subsidies to people based on whether their state set up its own exchange or instead relied on the federal government to set it up.  That would have disrupted the entire system Congress was setting up:

Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them.  If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.

Quoting an earlier case, the majority observed that “[w]e cannot interpret federal statutes to negate their own stated purposes."

Even today’s dissenters once acknowledged the majority’s interpretation.  The Chief Justice quotes their dissent in the first ACA case, where they argued the law was unconstitutional.  In that dissent (which Kennedy was also part of), they agreed that “[w]ithout the federal subsidies . . . the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all.”

The majority concludes that the context and structure of the ACA “compel” the interpretation assumed by Congress, the Obama Administration, and everyone else when the law was debated and passed: Subsidies are available in every state.

“Compel.”  And no Chevron deference.  That means a future conservative president cannot direct the IRS to revisit the subsidies issue and thus put Obamacare into a death spiral.  That puts the law on a stronger footing than it was under the Fourth Circuit’s ruling.

Given that the plaintiffs were confident of a 5-4 victory, today’s 6-3 defeat is not just a loss, it is a powerful rebuke.

But this case should never have been before the Court in the first place.  There was no circuit split (a contrary DC Circuit panel ruling had been vacated en banc), and the plaintiffs’ legal reasoning was laughable.  The fact that we went into this morning not knowing what the result would be shows just how much of the Court’s legitimacy the Court’s five conservatives have sacrificed in their effort to remake the law to fit their political ideology.  While today’s ruling is a great outcome, it should not blind anyone to the nature of the Roberts Court overall.

PFAW Foundation

No One is Tying Pat Toomey's Hands Except Himself

According to the Legal Intelligencer, Chuck Grassley’s staff is telegraphing his plans to delay a committee vote for Third Circuit nominee Phil Restrepo of Pennsylvania:

While no official word has been given that a request for a delay has been made by committee members, Beth Levine, spokeswoman for Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, the Judiciary Committee chairman, said in an email that it is safe to assume the confirmation vote for Restrepo will be held over.

Even worse, according to their reporting, Grassley's fellow Republican Senator Pat Toomey is not currently planning on doing anything to prevent a two-week delay in a committee vote to fill this emergency vacancy until after the July 4 recess, even though a second vacancy on the same court opens on July 1.

But Toomey spokeswoman E.R. Anderson said Toomey’s hands are tied because he is not a member of the Judiciary Committee.

“Toomey wants Restrepo confirmed,” Anderson said in an email, but he cannot control the scheduling of votes in the committee.

Of course, as Senator Toomey well knows, no one is claiming that he can “control” the scheduling of votes, and no one is asking him to.

What Pennsylvanians are asking him to do is to speak up on Judge Restrepo’s behalf, to ask Chairman Grassley not to delay the committee vote.  You don’t have to be a committee member to speak up on behalf of a nominee you support.  Senators do that all the time.

Well, maybe not all senators.  Just the ones who put the interests of their constituents and of nominees they support ahead of partisan politics.

PFAW

If Judiciary Committee Delays Restrepo Vote, Blame Pat Toomey

The Judiciary Committee has announced that it will hold an executive meeting this Thursday morning, and a vote on Third Circuit nominee L. Felipe Restrepo is on the agenda.

But with very, very few exceptions, President Obama’s judicial nominees have learned that being scheduled for a committee vote is not a guarantee that the vote will happen.  In fact, once Obama became president, Republicans exercised the right of the minority party to have a committee vote “held over” (delayed) by at least a week without cause in all but 12 instances for President Obama’s judicial nominees, which is an unprecedented abuse of the rules.  They have continued this practice as the majority party.

Yet there have been exceptions.  For instance, the nominee to replace Arizona’s murdered Judge Roll did not have her committee vote needlessly held over.  Nor did six Arizona nominees up for a vote on the same day last year at a time when that state was facing a judicial emergency.  In those cases, the state’s senators were willing to ask their fellow Republicans not to hold up vitally important committee votes.  Politics and partisanship took a back seat on those days.

There surely isn’t any doubt about the need to fill the Third Circuit vacancy as soon as possible.  It has been formally designated a judicial emergency by the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, meaning there just aren’t enough judges to handle the caseload.

Plus there’s a ticking clock: On July 1, Judge Marjorie Rendell will be taking senior status, thus creating yet another vacancy on a court that isn’t effectively handling the first one.  As for Restrepo himself, he has the strong support of his home state senators, Democrat Bob Casey and Republican Pat Toomey.

With the Senate out next week for its Independence Day recess, holding the vote over will delay it by at least two weeks, to July 9.  Why should Judge Restrepo’s committee vote be delayed for two weeks?

This is an opportunity for Pat Toomey to show leadership.  He can – and should – push for a committee vote this week.  If he has any influence among his colleagues, they will listen to him.

Pat Toomey says he supports this nomination.  His words have been wonderful.  But now is the time for deeds, not words.

PFAW

Fifth Circuit Upholds Extreme Abortion Restrictions in Texas

On Tuesday the Fifth Circuit federal appeals court upheld most of Texas’ stringent anti-abortion law, which could leave as few as seven clinics open in the nation’s second largest state. The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily blocked these restrictions in October; however, the Fifth Circuit’s ruling allows the law to stand, ushering in a likely wave of clinic closings for the Lone Star State.

The Associated Press explains how the law works:

 The decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allows Texas to enforce Republican-backed restrictions that require abortion clinics to meet hospital-level operating standards, a checklist that includes rules on minimum room sizes, staffing levels and air ventilation systems.

This decision represents an endorsement of a long series of right-wing initiatives to chip away at the rights protected by Roe v. Wade. By pushing unnecessary laws targeting abortion facilities, the Right can mandate costly renovations that create a needless economic strain on clinics. For example, the Texas law requires abortion clinics to abide by the same standards as hospital surgical centers, despite the fact that many clinics solely provide medical abortions, which do not involve surgery. The Supreme Court has said that states may not pass laws with the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion. But the court yesterday turned a blind eye to the obvious in order to further the Right’s anti-choice agenda.

A panel of three judges, all appointed by George W. Bush, delivered the decision, which will force facilities across the state to shut their doors and leave women hundreds of miles away from a licensed abortion provider. Verdicts from the ultra-conservative Fifth Circuit bench, like the decision in October letting Texas enforce strict voter ID laws, highlight the importance of who sits on our nation’s courts.  Although Fifth Circuit has two longstanding vacancies, Republican obstruction has prevented the filling of these seats. Tuesday’s decision further exemplifies the critical need for fair and just courts, particularly as right-wing legislators continue their relentless attack on the rights established by Roe.

PFAW

Toomey Can Protect the 3rd Circuit from Having Two Simultaneous Vacancies

Tomorrow’s hearing for Judge L. Felipe Restrepo’s Third Circuit nomination is occurring shortly before another vacancy opens on that same court, yet precedent shows that he can be confirmed in time to protect that court from having two vacancies at the same time.

When President Obama nominated Restrepo way back in November, it seemed unlikely that he would have to wait seven months just for his committee hearing. Unfortunately, Republican control of the Senate has caused the confirmation process to move slowly for all judicial nominations.

As a result, when the hearing occurs this Wednesday, it will be a mere three weeks before another vacancy opens on the same court on July 1. Considering that the vacancy that Judge Restrepo would fill has been formally designated as a judicial emergency, senators should be bending over backwards to confirm him before the next vacancy opens.

Fortunately, precedent shows that this can be done. Restrepo is helped by the fact that he is a known quantity – the Senate unanimously confirmed him to his current position just two years ago – and he has the bipartisan support of his home state senators.

Such an efficient process going forward would hardly be unprecedented. While no Obama circuit nominee has advanced from committee hearing to confirmation within three weeks, nine of George W. Bush’s circuit court nominees did. Notably, half of these nominations from the most recent GOP president were considered by a Senate controlled by Democrats.

  1. Roger Gregory, Fourth Circuit: 9 days (2001)
  2. William Riley, Eighth Circuit: 9 days (2001)
  3. Michael Melloy, Eighth Circuit: 18 days (2002)
  4. Jeffrey Howard, First Circuit: 12 days (2002)
  5. Consuelo Callahan, Ninth Circuit: 15 days (2003)
  6. Richard Wesley, Second Circuit: 20 days (2003)
  7. Michael Chagares, Third Circuit: 21 days (2006)
  8. Milan Smith, Ninth Circuit: 21 days (2006)
  9. G. Steven Agee, Fourth Circuit: 19 days (2008)

(The first one, Roger Gregory, was a unique case, since he had originally been a 2000 Bill Clinton nominee and recess appointee who was renominated by Bush.)

Fast forward to today: The clock is ticking toward July 1.

Just as Democrats and Republicans alike worked to confirm a number of President Bush’s circuit court nominees within three weeks of their committee hearings, Senators Bob Casey and Pat Toomey can work together to make this happen again. They both expressed strong support for Restrepo when he was nominated last year, and they can both see the harm to their constituents if the court has a second vacancy added to the already-existing judicial emergency.

Toomey has gotten a lot of bad in-state press criticizing him for his role in delaying Restrepo’s hearing for more than half a year. That delay is the reason there are only three weeks left before the next vacancy opens.

But with the Senate under Republican control, Toomey now has an opportunity to showcase his ability to influence Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and protect Pennsylvanians’ access to justice. A public statement by Toomey at the hearing on the pressing need for the Senate to act quickly to prevent a second vacancy on the court would send an important signal to his constituents, as well as to his Senate colleagues.

Ten of George W. Bush’s circuit court judges were confirmed by the Democratic-controlled Senate in his last two years in office, three of them by this same point in 2007. The count for the current Senate is zero. But with Toomey’s help, there could be a Third Circuit confirmation before Independence Day.

PFAW

What’s at Stake in the Supreme Court’s Fair Housing Case?

Although the case hasn’t gotten as much mainstream press attention as the forthcoming blockbuster rulings on marriage and on the ACA, the Supreme Court will be issuing a crucial decision on fair housing in the next few weeks in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project. A bad decision would reverse decades of positive decisions and progress in  fair housing.

As our nation learned during the riots of the 1960s, and is tragically re-learning today, segregation in housing is both a major cause and effect of our urban problems and inequality. Partly in response, Congress enacted the Fair Housing Act in 1968, with the explicit purpose to “provide, within constitutional limitations, for fair housing throughout the United States.” For almost four decades, every appellate court that has considered the issue and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under both Republican and Democratic administrations have interpreted the Act to prohibit conduct that has a discriminatory effect based on race, color, religion, gender, disability, or familial status without a good justification. The issue in Texas Department is whether the Court will overturn that standard and rule that you don’t have a case under the Fair Housing Act unless you can prove specific intent to discriminate.

Why is this important? On a practical level, requiring proof of intent will make fair housing enforcement much more difficult; as one court noted, “clever men may easily conceal their motivations.” More broadly, discrimination and segregation often result from policies that may not be motivated by specific bad intent but that build on historic and systemic patterns of discrimination and lock out racial and other minorities. The “disparate impact” test, which is the legal term for the standard based on unjustified discriminatory effects, has helped combat that problem.

For example, in one case a building policy that imposed a limit of two people per bedroom resulted in the effective eviction from a one-bedroom apartment of a young couple who had just had a child. The policy was challenged based on disparate impact. It turned out there was no good business justification for the policy, and 150 units were opened up for families with children as a result. Similar challenges to policies that excluded disabled veterans by requiring residents to have full-time jobs or zoning restrictions that excluded racial minorities by requiring large lot sizes have helped break down long-entrenched problems of discrimination and exclusion.

All eleven federal courts of appeal that have considered this issue since the 1970s have approved the disparate impact standard. As explained in a brief to the Supreme Court by former Republican and Democratic HUD appointees, HUD has also followed this standard for decades. As a former HUD official and career-long civil rights attorney, I know the importance of the disparate impact test. As I wrote in a law review article more than 35 years ago, “only by concentrating on effect can the issue of discrimination be realistically addressed at all.”

If the Supreme Court overturns the long-accepted disparate impact standard, the continuing problems of discrimination and segregation in our country will only get worse in the years to come. The outcome of this case will have an enormous impact on millions of people throughout America, and on the nature of who we are as a nation.

PFAW Foundation