The majority of the attention at Judge Kentanji Brown Jackson’s recent confirmation hearings focused on her record as a district judge, especially the part where she gave unusually lenient sentences to child pornographers.[1] Highlighting this was understandable and laudable, but senators missed an opportunity to inquire about the nominee’s short time as an appellate judge, particularly her deeply alarming comments in a case just this year. Doing so would have provided a rare opportunity to see how Jackson’s judicial philosophy may be defined by the deeply undemocratic philosophies of the insular, extremist universities she has spent much of her adult life in.
The Shaffer Case
The case, Shaffer v. George Washington University, decided appeals in two separate suits, one against American University and the other against George Washington University (GW).[2] The facts of the two cases are functionally the same. Both universities advertised to students an in-person education, complete with campus resources, face-to-face connection & networking opportunities, and state-of-the-art facilities.[3] Both universities also offered online classes at a far lower cost, tacitly acknowledging they were of inferior value.[4] In addition to charging over $28,000 a year in tuition, the schools levied additional fees for campus services, such as activity fees, sports center fees, and a “Metro U-Pass Fee[s].”[5]
Then Covid hit. Both schools, like so many other businesses throughout the country, were shuttered.[6] No more state-of-the-art facilities. No more campus resources. No networking, no connections, no sport centers, no activities. The American and GW university experience would now be conducted through webcam.[7]
As the owners and employees of the over 97,000 businesses that went under during 2020 can attest, widespread closures–even when mandated by government order–do not clear a business from contractual liability.[8] Bills still need to be paid. Rent is still due.[9] Commitments made long before the world went insane still need to be honored, even if it means financial ruin for someone who has done nothing wrong.
American and GW had something many of their fellow District of Columbia businesses did not: A lot of money in reserves. American had an endowment that exceeded $676 million; GW’s exceeded $1.8 billion.[10] Nevertheless, unlike the thousands upon thousands of businesses that were forced into bankruptcy by Covid shutdowns, American and GW decided to just keep the money. Sure, neither university was providing the services they collected tuition and fees for; but, this was now a “Covid” emergency, so they concluded basic decency–and the five centuries of contract law backing up that decency–no longer applied.
Unsurprisingly, American and GW’s actions landed them in court.[11] They were far from alone. Universities across America took the same “keep all the money” strategy, meaning dozens of suits around the country hinged on the same basic question: Are universities special?[12] Does contract law apply to them too? Or does their elite status bestow on them a special kind of immunity, making them superior to the code of honoring promises that lesser (poorer) businesses must abide by?
To put this question into legal terms, American and GW emphasized that the District of Columbia forbids “courts from reviewing claims that test the quality or value of the education students receive.” This policy is analogous to the common law “educational malpractice” doctrine, which prevents suits alleging that the instruction and curriculum provided was lacking. Such a rule makes perfect sense: Any decision on something as intangible as learning would be inherently subjective. What factors would a court use to distinguish a good genderqueer dance theory curriculum from a bad one?
What educational malpractice is not, though, is an immunity shield for universities.[13] Just like any other corporations, they must obey contract law. Tangible, specific promises they make must be honored.[14] A university is not required to justify the quality of the product it sells, but it is not allowed to exchange that product for an entirely different one after getting paid.[15]
Shaffer came to the DC Circuit Court as appeals of motions to dismiss.[16] This was a pre-trial procedure, and it meant that the court had to assume all the facts in favor of the students, and ignore fact-specific legal doctrines like discharge of duties.[17] In effect, the case hinged on whether to expand DC’s educational malpractice analog to erase the university’s debts–and leave students with the bill. As it was an appeal in what is arguably the second-most significant court in the nation, the Shaffer holding was expected to have repercussions not just for the American and GW suits, but for dozens of other ones around the nation.[18]
The case was argued before a three-judge panel in mid-January.[19] On March 8, the opinion, by Judge Harry T. Edwards, was announced.[20] Edwards is no right-winger: A Jimmy Carter appointee, he wrote a high-profile dissent defending Obamacare and had his marriage officiated by Ruth Bader Ginsburg.[21] However, as a renowned author and the first black person to be Senior Judge of the DC Circuit, Edwards does possess a deep understanding and respect for the law.[22] As a result, his decision was in favor of the students.[23] “Determining whether the Universities in fact breached. . . . promises does not require this court to subjectively value the quality of Plaintiffs’ education,” Edwards wrote. “Defendants’ argument to the contrary overlooks the fact that the Universities themselves apparently charge different rates for online and in-person instruction.”[24]
The Shaffer Hearing
Edwards’ opinion, while welcome, should not have been a surprise. As a number of district courts had emphasized, the law (and basic common sense) is pretty clear: Requesting tuition reimbursement is not arguing educational malpractice.[25] What was interesting though, was who was not included. Kentanji Brown Jackson had participated in the January arguments for Shaffer.[26] However, after she had been nominated for the Supreme Court, she recused herself from all decisions she had heard but not ruled on, meaning she neither joined nor dissented from the court’s March opinion.[27] What was said at the hearing, though, was eye-opening…and alarming.
While Edwards asked pointed, to-the-meat questions like “Are you saying you reserved the right to keep all of your money for a service they’re not going to give you?,” Jackson seemed bewildered.[28] “I'm trying to find an implicit promise of the universities that they would go forward [with in-person learning] in all circumstances,” Jackson pondered.[29] She then added that she was “trying to figure out if it makes any sense to infer that [the schools] intended to" promise in-person education "no matter what."[30] The universities, she concluded, ““did not breach because they only promised to do it [provide in-person education and resources] as a general matter in the course of affairs that ordinarily exist.”[31]
What Jackson seemed to be ignoring was that the hearing was for a motion to dismiss. Any promises alleged would have to be taken at face value–and, to be clear, students from both schools had produced bulletins and advertisements describing, in detail, the on-campus resources being offered.[32] Given that, why would the students not take these promises to be “in all circumstances,” especially when the schools offered online-only classes for far less money. The schools boasted of campus connections, resources, and opportunities–and collected fees specifically labeled for these activities. Would the students really have believed that by paying extra they were merely buying a chance to get a different experience than the cheaper online-only option? The idea is preposterous.
Someone with the legal experience of Jackson certainly knows the standard for motions to dismiss in typical contract claims. It strains credulity to pretend that another type of business attempting to dodge Covid debts would have gotten the same response. Jackson’s magical “no matter what” standard, imposed before the trial even commenced, seems to be applying an entirely different standard to universities.[33] To understand the origins of this Big Academia deference, it is wise to look to Jackson’s life before the Shaffer case–and how much it entwined with a corrupt university system diametrically opposed to typical American values.
Kentanji Brown Jackson and the University System
Aside from a year as a researcher for Time magazine, the entirety of Jackson’s adult life before taking the bar exam was spent studying at Harvard University.[34] While a student there, she embraced the school’s infamous illiberal, pro-censorship ideology, joining a woke mob that protested legendary attorney Alan Dershowitz for defending a student’s right to display a Confederate flag in her personal dorm room window.[35] Harvard’s enrollment agreement (both then and now) guaranteed students the right to engage in political speech, meaning that Jackson’s demands would necessarily require the school to break its contract.[36]
After becoming a district judge, Jackson returned to Harvard, this time as a member of its board of overseers–a position she continues to hold.[37] Harvard, interestingly, is one of the many schools sued for refusing to reimburse tuition and fees after Covid.[38] In addition to this controversy, Harvard has undergone several scandals during Jackson’s tenure, being listed on FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education)’s “10 Worst Colleges for Free Speech” list three separate times since she joined.[39] Among the school’s most egregious actions (many of which likely violated its contracts with students) was instituting restrictions for any organizations that invited “controversial speakers” and expanding deans’ discretionary (and arbitrary) ability to cancel student group events.[40]
The university president argued, “Freedom of association is a concept that was used widely in the white South to combat Brown v. Board [of Education], to combat the Civil Rights Act. It’s an argument that has been used to sustain and support discrimination.”[41] It is Harvard, though, that has sustained and supported discrimination. The school was caught systematically excluding Asian applicants by intentionally giving them lower “personality” scores (so as to promote diversity).[42]
Harvard’s prejudice, censorship, and left-wing extremism–which comes from the enmeshed philosophies of intersectionality and critical race theory (CRT)–is hardly an anomaly among the modern university system. It also appears to represent Jackson’s personal beliefs. In a 2020 speech at the University of Michigan (another school sued for Covid tuition reimbursements), Jackson praised Derrick Bell, the founder of CRT, and his (in)famous book subtitled The Permanence of Racism.[43] She also commended “acclaimed investigative journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones” for her “provocative thesis that the America born in 1776 was not the perfect union it purported to be.”[44] Hannah-Jones is the creator of the infamous 1619 Project, which (in Hannah-Jones’ own words) argued “one of the primary reasons the colonists decided to declare independence was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery.”[45] While popular on the Left, the Project has been widely debunked, with its publisher quietly retracting the work’s essential claims.[46]
When given an opportunity at her confirmation, Jackson refused to disavow the Project.[47] The discredited series is also taught at Georgetown Day School, an elite, preK-12, DC private school that Jackson sits on the board of and sends her daughter to.[48] At her hearings, Jackson recited the baseless claim that CRT is “an academic theory at the law school level.” However, Georgetown Day’s curriculum includes notable CRT-publications, including the books Critical Race Theory: An Introduction and anti-cop manifesto The End of Policing.[49]
Big Academia Deference
CRT “explicitly” rejects the idea of ‘equality’--which makes up the backbone of the Fourteenth Amendment (and the Declaration of Independence the amendment is based on)--believing such a concept to be a fantasy that disguises systematic oppression.[50] Instead, CRT argues for equity.[51] ‘Equity’ is an amorphous term that can be used to justify a wide variety of seemingly unfair or prejudicial acts, so long as they are intended to remedy intangible communal suffering.[52] In a legal framework, this requires the rejection of natural rights, the idea (favored by the Founders) that individuals have inalienable rights that exist regardless of culture or environment.[53] The alternative theory is that of positive rights, which contends that any rights a person has come from the subjective judgment of their society–and can thus be taken away based on circumstance.[54] Jackson, unsurprisingly, refused to acknowledge the existence of natural rights, even when asked explicitly.[55]
A CRT-based, natural rights-free ideology provides an explanation for why, despite the fact that all other businesses were forced to honor their contracts during Covid, woke universities should not have to. Viewed subjectively (by people trained at said universities, of course), the schools’ noble purpose of providing a learning experience is far too ephemeral a concept to make written promises and advertising binding. It is viewed as categorically distinct from the grubby, market-based industries that engage in exchanging goods and services and therefore follow peasant law (even when the government mandates its unprofitability).
Obviously, such a concept is wholly at odds with the idea of “equal protection.”[56] However, in a CRT-enlightened universe divided between those labeled “essential” and “inessential,” it might just make sense.[57]
Justice Jackson
The Supreme Court is likely to face several more university cases in the near future. A suit over Harvard’s discrimination will be heard next term (Jackson said she has a “plan” to recuse, but was noncommittal[58]), as will a similar one for the public University of North Carolina.[59] Action in a Shaffer-esque Ccovid tuition case is in the cards.[60] Issues like campus censorship, secret science, and Title IX kangaroo courts loom on the horizon.[61]
Will parties challenging the powerful, rigid university system get their Fourteenth Amendment equal treatment in the nation’s highest court? Or will a Justice Jackson impose the doctrine of Big Academia deference on our laws? Sadly, the judge was not challenged on this question at her hearing, so we must wait for her rulings to know the definitive answer.
There is little reason to be optimistic.
References [1] Wendell Husebo, Judge Jackson Sentenced Those in Possession of Child Porn to Nearly 60 Percent Less Time Than National Average, Bʀᴇɪᴛʙᴀʀᴛ (March 30, 2022), https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/03/30/exclusive-judge-jackson-sentenced-those-in-possession-of-child-porn-to-nearly-60-percent-less-time-than-national-average/. [2] Shaffer v. George Washington Univ., 27 F.4th 754, 761 (D.C. Cir. 2022). [3] See Appellants Brief, Quereshi v. American Univ., 2021 WL 5987140 (C.A.D.C.), 3; and see Brief for Plaintiff-Appellants, Shaffer v. George Washington Univ., 2021 WL 4208746 (C.A.D.C.), 9; and see Class Action Complaint, Quereshi v. American Univ., 2020 WL 2095519 ¶ 20 (D.D.C.). [4] See Appellants Brief, Quereshi, 2021 WL 5987140 at 13; and see Brief for Plaintiff-Appellants, Shaffer, 2021 WL 4208746 at 2. [5] See Appellants Brief, Quereshi, 2021 WL 5987140 at 3; and see Brief for Plaintiff-Appellants, Shaffer, 2021 WL 4208746 at 7. [6] Shaffer v. George Washington Univ., 27 F.4th 754, 759 (D.C. Cir. 2022). [7] Id. [8] Lisa Fickenscher, Nearly 60 percent of Covid-19 business closures are permanent: report, Nᴇᴡ Yᴏʀᴋ Pᴏsᴛ (Sep. 17, 2020), https://nypost.com/2020/09/17/majority-of-covid-19-business-closures-are-permanent-report/; and see Stephanie Carter, et al., The D.C.-Area Bars and Restaurants That Have Closed During the COVID-19 Crisis, Eᴀᴛᴇʀ: Wᴀsʜɪɴɢᴛᴏɴ DC (Updated: March 30, 2022), https://dc.eater.com/2020/5/18/21262400/dc-restaurants-permanently-closed-covid-19-coronavirus-crisis. [9] See Alabama Ass’n of Realtors v. Dep. of Health and Human Services, 594 U.S. 1, 1-2 (2021). [10] Class Action Complaint, Quereshi v. American Univ., 2020 WL 2095519 ¶ 7; Endowment Stewardship Report: 2020, Gᴇᴏʀɢᴇ Wᴀsʜɪɴɢᴛᴏɴ Uɴɪᴠ. (2020), https://finance.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs3726/f/downloads/FY20%20Endowment%20Annual%20Report.pdf. [11] See Shaffer, 27 F.4th at 759. [12] See, e.g.,, In re Univ. of San Diego Tuition & Fees COVID-19 Refund Litig., No. 20CV1946-LAB-WVG, 2022 WL 959266, at *3 (S.D. Cal), Hiatt v. Brigham Young Univ., 512 F. Supp. 3d 1180, 1186 (D. Utah 2021); Rhodes v. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical Univ., 513 F. Supp. 3d 1350, 1357 (M.D. Fla. 2021); McCarthy v. Loyola Marymount Univ., No. 220CV0466SBJEMX, 2021 WL 268242, at *3 (C.D. Cal. 2021); Ford v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., 507 F. Supp. 3d 406, 417 (N.D.N.Y. 2020); Verlanga v. Univ. of San Francisco, No. CGC-20-584829, 2020 WL 7229855, at *4 (Cal.Super. 2020); Bahrani v. Ne. Univ., No. CV 20-10946-RGS, 2020 WL 7774292, at *2 (D. Mass. 2020); Salerno v. Fla. S. Coll., 488 F. Supp. 3d 1211, 1218 (M.D. Fla. 2020); Grant v. Chapman Univ., No. 30202001146699CUBCCX, 2021 WL 684581, at *3 (Cal.Super. 2021). [13] Grant, No. 30202001146699CUBCCX, 2021 WL 684581, at *3 (“[J]ust because a claim touches on educational issues does not mean it sounds in ‘educational malpractice’”). [14] Id. [15] Bahrani, No. CV 20-10946-RGS, 2020 WL 7774292, at *2 (holding that “to challenge the fact of the switch from in-person to online instruction” is not to challenge “the quality of the online education”). [16] Shaffer, 27 F.4th at 761. [17] Id. [18] Josh Gerstein, Appeals court could revive suits seeking tuition refunds over Covid closures, Pᴏʟɪᴛɪᴄᴏ (Jan. 14, 2022), https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/14/suits-tuition-refunds-pandemic-closures-527162. [19] Id. [20] Shaffer, 27 F.4th at 759. [21] Halbig v. Burwell, 758 F.3d 390, 412 (D.C. Cir. 2014), J. Edwards, dissenting, overruled by King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 988 (2015); Shadee Ashtari, Judge Harry Edwards Issues Blistering Dissent Slamming 'Nonsense' Obamacare Decision, Hᴜғғɪɴɢᴛᴏɴ Pᴏsᴛ (July 22, 2014), https://www.huffpost.com/entry/judge-harry-edwards-obamacare-ruling_n_5609897; Weddings; Pamela Carrington, Harry Edwards, Nᴇᴡ Yᴏʀᴋ Tɪᴍᴇs (Feb. 13, 2000), https://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/13/style/weddings-pamela-carrington-harry-edwards.html. [23] Shaffer, 27 F.4th at 760-61. [24] Id. at 765. [25] See, e.g., In re Univ. of San Diego Tuition & Fees COVID-19 Refund Litig., No. 20CV1946-LAB-WVG, 2022 WL 959266, at *3 (S.D. Cal), Hiatt v. Brigham Young Univ., 512 F. Supp. 3d 1180, 1186 (D. Utah 2021); Rhodes v. Embry-Riddle Aeronautical Univ., 513 F. Supp. 3d 1350, 1357 (M.D. Fla. 2021); McCarthy v. Loyola Marymount Univ., No. 220CV0466SBJEMX, 2021 WL 268242, at *3 (C.D. Cal. 2021); Ford v. Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst., 507 F. Supp. 3d 406, 417 (N.D.N.Y. 2020); Verlanga v. Univ. of San Francisco, No. CGC-20-584829, 2020 WL 7229855, at *4 (Cal.Super. 2020); Bahrani v. Ne. Univ., No. CV 20-10946-RGS, 2020 WL 7774292, at *2 (D. Mass. 2020); Salerno v. Fla. S. Coll., 488 F. Supp. 3d 1211, 1218 (M.D. Fla. 2020); Grant v. Chapman Univ., No. 30202001146699CUBCCX, 2021 WL 684581, at *3 (Cal.Super. 2021). [26] Appeals court could revive, supra note 18. [27] Josh Gerstein, Appeals court revives tuition-refund lawsuits against AU & GWU, Pᴏʟɪᴛɪᴄᴏ (March 8, 2022), https://www.politico.com/news/2022/01/14/suits-tuition-refunds-pandemic-closures-527162. [28] Appeals court could revive, supra note 18; and see Khorri Atkinson, DC Circ. Wary Of Students' Bid For COVID Tuition Refunds, Lᴀᴡ360 (Jan. 14, 2022), https://www.law360.com/articles/1455525/dc-circ-wary-of-students-bid-for-covid-tuition-refunds. [29] Atkinson, supra note 28. [30] Id. [31] Appeals court could revive, supra note 18. [32] See Appellants Brief, Quereshi, 2021 WL 5987140 at 13; and see Brief for Plaintiff-Appellants, Shaffer, 2021 WL 4208746 at 2, 7; for motion to dismiss standard, see Shaffer, 27 F.4th at 761. [33] Atkinson, supra note 28. [34] Amy Howe, Profile of a potential nominee: Ketanji Brown Jackson, SCOTUSʙʟᴏɢ (Feb. 1, 2022), https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/02/profile-of-a-potential-nominee-ketanji-brown-jackson/. [35] Alan M. Dershowitz, My Encounter with Ketanji Brown Jackson at Harvard in 1991, Bʀᴇɪᴛʙᴀʀᴛ (March 21, 2022), https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/03/21/exclusive-alan-dershowitz-my-encounter-with-ketanji-brown-jackson-at-harvard-in-1991/. [36] See Harvey Silverglate, et al., Free Speech on Campus 57-60 (Greg Lukianoff & William Creely eds., 2d ed., 2012); and see Dershowitz, supra note 35. [37] Howe, supra note 34; and see Board of Overseers, Hᴀʀᴠᴀʀᴅ Uɴɪᴠᴇʀsɪᴛʏ (2022), https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KIJgNzLaZxzCHWqNCgJ5HsMpt8lQ5rl8--mZlQzct_Y/edit. [38] First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, Barkhordar v. President and Fellows of Harvard Univ., 2020 WL 8613897, ¶¶ 2-9 (D.Mass.). [39] See 10 Worst Colleges for Free Speech: 2020, FIRE (Jan. 29, 2020), https://www.thefire.org/10-worst-colleges-for-free-speech-2020/; and see The 10 worst colleges for free speech: 2018, FIRE (Feb. 12, 2018), https://www.thefire.org/the-10-worst-colleges-for-free-speech-2018/; and see Greg Lukianoff, The 10 Worst Colleges for Free Speech: 2017, HᴜғғPᴏsᴛ Cᴏɴᴛʀɪʙᴜᴛᴏʀ (Feb. 22, 2017), https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-10-worst-colleges-for-free-speech-2017_b_58ac64bfe4b0417c4066c2f1. [40] Crimson Editorial Board, Moderation or Suffocation, Hᴀʀᴠᴀʀᴅ Cʀɪᴍsᴏɴ (Sep. 24, 2019), https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019/9/24/editorial-moderation-suffocation/. [41] Alex Morey, Harvard President to Consider ‘Alternatives’ to Final Club Policy, but Reveals Troubling Views on Freedom of Association, FIRE (Nov. 7, 2016), https://www.thefire.org/harvard-president-to-consider-alternatives-to-final-club-policy-but-reveals-troubling-personal-views-on-freedom-of-association/. [42] Reply Brief of Appellant Students for Fair Admissions, Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard Coll., 2020 WL 304792 at *16-17 (“Harvard doesn't dispute that Asian-American applicants receive significantly lower personal ratings. Harvard doesn't dispute that these lower ratings disproportionately undermine their admissions chances. And Harvard doesn't dispute that, if the personal rating is removed as a variable, all the admissions models--the court's, SFFA's, and Harvard's--show a statistically significant penalty that is unexplainable on non-racial grounds.”) [43]Joel B. Pollack, Scotus Nominee Kentanji Brown Jackson Inspired by Critical Race Theory, ‘1619 Project’, Black Lives Matter Protest, Bʀᴇɪᴛʙᴀʀᴛ (March 17, 2022), https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/03/17/scotus-nominee-ketanji-brown-jackson-inspired-by-critical-race-theory-1619-project-black-lives-matter/; and see Ismael Hernandez, Derrick Bell and Critical Race Theory, Fʀᴇᴇᴅᴏᴍ & Vɪʀᴛᴜᴇ Iɴsᴛɪᴛᴜᴛᴇ (Jan. 11, 2019), https://fvinstitute.org/derrick-bell-and-critical-race-theory/. [44] News 19 WLTX, Ted Cruz asks Ketanji Brown Jackson about critical race theory full video, YᴏᴜTᴜʙᴇ (Mar. 22, 2022), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9lxFfOgFtM; Victor Williams, Lawsuits filed against Michigan colleges for tuition reimbursement after changes made due to COVID-19, WDIV-TV Lᴏᴄᴀʟ 4 (April 22, 2020), https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/local/2020/04/23/lawsuits-filed-against-michigan-colleges-for-tuition-reimbursement-after-changes-made-due-to-covid-19/. [45] News 19 WLTX, supra note 44. [46] Id. [47] Id. [48] News 19 WLTX, supra note 44; Howe, supra note 34. [49] News 19 WLTX, supra note 44. [50] U.S. Const. amend. XIV; Breccan F. Thies, Critical Race Theory: Inside a Virginia County’s Curriculum for Racial Indoctrination, Bʀᴇɪᴛʙᴀʀᴛ (May 28, 2021), https://www.breitbart.com/education/2021/05/28/exclusive-critical-race-theory-inside-virginia-countys-curriculum-racial-indoctrination/. [51] Thies, supra note 50. [52] Id. [53] Jordan Dixon-Hamilton, Kentanji Brown Jackson Refuses to Say Whether Individuals Have Natural Rights, Bʀᴇɪᴛʙᴀʀᴛ (April 3, 2022), https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/04/03/ketanji-brown-jackson-refuses-to-say-whether-individuals-have-natural-rights/. [54] Id. [55] Id. [56] See id. [57] See Interim List of Categories of Essential Workers Mapped to Standardized Industry Codes and Titles, Cᴇɴᴛᴇʀ ғᴏʀ Dɪsᴇᴀsᴇ Cᴏɴᴛʀᴏʟ (March 29, 2021), https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/categories-essential-workers.html; and see Hannah Bleau, CDC Embraces Critical Race Theory Language, Bʀᴇɪᴛʙᴀʀᴛ (July 17, 2021), https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/07/17/cdc-embraces-critical-race-theory-language-cites-social-inequities-in-risks-of-contracting-coronavirus/. [58] News 19 WLTX, supra note 44; [59] Order List, 595 U.S. 21-707, https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/012422zor_m6io.pdf [60] See Shaffer, 27 F.4th at 761. [61] See Rachel Frazin, Court Tosses Trump EPA’s ‘secret science’ rule, Tʜᴇ Hɪʟʟ (March 1, 2021), https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/536787-court-tosses-trump-epas-secret-science-rule/; and see Greg Piper, Judge orders USC to pay accused student $142,100 for Title IX kangaroo court, Tʜᴇ Cᴏʟʟᴇɢᴇ Fɪx (Oct. 22, 2019), https://www.thecollegefix.com/judge-orders-usc-to-pay-accused-student-142100-for-title-ix-kangaroo-court/; and see 10 Worst Colleges for Free Speech: 2021, FIRE (Feb. 17, 2021), https://www.thefire.org/10-worst-colleges-for-free-speech-2021/.
Commentaires