The legal literature of legal theory can be tricky.
The Supreme Court’s landmark 1973 decision in Fisher v.
University of Texas at Austin, which defined affirmative action in higher education as a form of racial discrimination, was a seminal landmark, but it left a lot of gray areas to be settled.
As a result, it has become an open question whether affirmative action policies have to follow a single set of rules.
What about laws and policies that have a variety of interpretations?
A lot of scholars are interested in whether the law should follow a rule of thumb or whether it should be flexible enough to allow for more than one interpretation.
A case that may have the most direct application to the Supreme Court is Roe v.
Wade, which decided Roe v Wade and legalized abortion nationwide.
The case involved a group of women who were being discriminated against in the Texas state legislature, but the women did not receive any preferential treatment from the legislature.
The court held that the legislature could not pass a law prohibiting abortion if the legislature knew of a woman’s race or sexual orientation.
Roe was decided after the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v.
Sandford, which held that blacks could not be executed for crimes committed as a result of slavery.
The decision set the stage for Roe v Widmar, which ended slavery in the United States.
Roe’s ruling set the precedent for states to enact laws that did not require abortion exceptions.
But as the case developed, the court became aware that the Supreme Courts decisions that had been issued prior to Roe had different interpretations.
So, for example, the decision in Brown v.
Board of Education held that racial segregation in schools did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Roe had a number of implications for federal statutes that sought to regulate education.
It meant that federal laws that had a discriminatory intent could not prohibit public institutions from discriminating against students based on race, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, disability, and religious beliefs.
Some states also took steps to avoid creating a “back door” to an individual’s access to educational resources.
The Obama administration has used federal law to enforce these policies, but some states have not.
So what’s the right approach to interpreting Roe?
Some scholars argue that Roe’s decision should be interpreted broadly and that its rulings should apply to all students regardless of their race, religion, sexual identity, or disability.
The other approach is to interpret the decision strictly in terms of its implications for individual students, according to Stephen F. Cribbs, a law professor at the University of Miami and author of The Legal Theory of Discrimination: Race, Sex, and the Law of Discrimination.
The latter approach is less clear.
“It is not clear whether the Roe decision is a law that should apply across the board to all or just a particular group of students, and therefore, whether all of the students should be treated equally,” Cribb said.
But some have argued that the law does not provide clear guidance on the interpretation of its requirements.
For example, in an article published in the Washington Post in November 2016, a group including several leading conservative scholars, including William Saletan, Ronald Reagan’s Chief of Staff, and William F. Buckley Jr., Jr., a Republican strategist, argued that “Roe is a powerful case for the courts to interpret and enforce.”
They said that if a state’s statute explicitly prohibited discrimination, then it was illegal, even if the statute did not explicitly prohibit discrimination.
The authors also wrote that the decision had “deep implications” for the “unchecked expansion of the right to discriminate.”
However, some scholars are also interested in what the Supreme and lower courts will decide about a number other cases, including whether a state can regulate discrimination based on sexual orientation or disability, sexual harassment, and whether a student’s race is a factor in receiving a free lunch.
The U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that it will review these cases when they come before it.
The Trump administration has not taken a position on these cases yet, but Trump has not indicated that he would reverse Roe or any of the other rulings on which the court relies.
In an interview with Fox News last month, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who is running for president, said that he was committed to enforcing the law, and that he has asked the Department of Justice to work with states to “exercise the authority of the courts and protect the dignity of every student.”