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

Administrator (talk | contribs)
Concurrence: Abrogate
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Administrator (talk | contribs)
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 10: Line 10:
| Concurrence=Lobbezoo
| Concurrence=Lobbezoo
| JoinConcurrence=Bidari
| 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
| 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)]]  
| Related = [[Parikh v. University Elections Commission (2012)|''Parikh v. UEC'' (2012)]]  
Line 21: Line 21:
== Background ==
== 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.
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.