Independent Special Prosecutor v. Kisswani (2024): Difference between revisions

← Older edit

VisualWikitext

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 | Concurrence=Lobbezoo
 | JoinConcurrence=Bidari
-| QuestionsPresented = (1) Should this Court overrule ''[[Grutter v. Bollinger]]'', and hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions; and<br>(2) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act bans race-based admissions that, if done by a public university, would violate the Equal Protection Clause. Is Harvard violating Title VI by penalizing Asian-American applicants, engaging in racial balancing, overemphasizing race, and rejecting workable race-neutral alternatives?
+| QuestionsPresented = (1) Do monetary limits on accepting campaign donations violate the Free Speech Clause of the [[All-Campus Constitution]]; and<br>(2) do monetary limits on campaign expenditures violate the Free Speech Clause of the [[All-Campus Constitution]]?
-| Holding = [[Harvard University|Harvard]]'s admissions program violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [[United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit]] reversed.
+| Holding = The [[Compiled Code]] regulates only the making of donations, not the acceptance of donations. Campaign expenditure limits are unconstitutional. The complaint is dismissed.
 | LawsApplied=[[All-Campus Constitution|A.C. Const. art. VIII]]; [[Elections Code |Compiled Code art. IV]] § 7.4.1.2, 7.5.1
 | Related = [[Parikh v. University Elections Commission (2012)|''Parikh v. UEC'' (2012)]]
@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 == Background ==
-During the [[Fall 2024 elections|fall 2024 elections]], Independent Special Prosecutor [[Aiden Burke]] filed a complaint against [[Hana Kisswani]], a candidate for the School of Social Work's single Assembly seat. The complaint alleged that Kisswani violated two provisions of the Compiled Code: the prohibition on donations from non-students and the candidate expenditure limit.
+During the [[Fall 2024 elections|fall 2024 elections]], [[Independent Special Prosecutor]] [[Aiden Burke]] filed a complaint against [[Hana Kisswani]], a candidate for the School of Social Work's single Assembly seat. The complaint alleged that Kisswani violated two provisions of the Compiled Code: the prohibition on donations from non-students and the candidate expenditure limit.
 Kisswani admitted to accepting an in-kind donation of campaign stickers from her sister, Heedaya Kisswani, who was not enrolled at the university. Kisswani was therefore accused of violating [[Elections Code |Compiled Code Article IV]] § 7.4.1.2, the "Donation Rule," which prohibits donations from individuals who are not University of Michigan students. Additionally, Kisswani conceded that she exceeded the $125 "Campaign Expenditure Limit" imposed by Compiled Code Article IV § 7.5.1.
@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 Lobbezoo observed that more recent decisions recognized a Free Speech Clause quite different from what ''Parikh'' imagined. While acknowledging that Parikh's outdated framework had been limited to its facts, the concurrence expressed concern about letting it "lie about like a loaded weapon ready to be brandished by the hand of any authority in a future case" (quoting Justice Jackson's dissent in ''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States Korematsu]'').
-Though the opinion of the court overruled, in part, the underlying reasoning of ''Parikh'', the concurrence suggested explicitly overruling ''Parikh'''s free speech analysis altogether.
+Though the opinion of the court effective abrogated the underlying reasoning of ''Parikh'', the concurrence suggested explicitly overruling ''Parikh'''s free speech analysis altogether.