What exactly is implied when SCOTUS sends a case back to a lower court to reconsider?

[KarlGauss]

Today, in an “affirmative action” case, the decision was to send it back to the lower court for reconsideration. What does this mean? Did SCOTUS clarify the law for the lower court and then say, ‘now, go apply it’?

Thanks!

[Richard_Parker]

Yes to your second question.

[AK84]

A remand generally means that the decision itself was wrong or the Court below made errors of law and or procedure which render the judgement unsafe. Most appeals which are accepted simply see the overturning of the judgement below, remands are less common.

From what the NYT is saying, it seems that the Court ruled that the Court below got the law as applied to the facts wrong.

[friedo]

@KarlGauss

Did SCOTUS clarify the law for the lower court and then say, ‘now, go apply it’?

Yep, that’s basically it. In general this type of thing is called a remand. An appellate court can remand a case back to a trial court or lower appellate court. In this case, the Supreme Court has remanded the case back to the Fifth Circuit, with clarifications on how to interpret certain unsettled aspects of the law. It’s now up the lower court to issue a new decision with the Supreme Court’s directions in mind.

[KarlGauss]

Thank you.

Wouldn’t the Certiorari process have uncovered the need for such a remand? Or does it require too much analysis for the limited time available during that process? (I thought that granting Certiorari meant that there were fundamental questions at stake, not that the Lower Court needed to do more due diligence)

[AK84]

@KarlGauss

Thank you.

Wouldn’t the Certiorari process have uncovered the need for such a remand? Or does it require too much analysis for the limited time available during that process? (I thought that granting Certiorari meant that there were fundamental questions at stake, not that the Lower Court needed to do more due diligence)

They did grant certiorari and heard the case on merits. While you are right that certiorari is granted for those cases which raise issues of national importance (the case here I reckon) and do not get into cases which are settled law, particularly egregious errors can and a reversed, even if they do not come under the normal criterion.Ai remember reading that the Roberts court has been granting many more summery reversals than before as well as GVR’s..

It’s possible that the error was not apparent on the face the record and only came out during arguments or in the merits briefs.

[md2000]

From what I am reading, they said that quotas were ok (as part of a larger evaluation process) if there was a strict scrutiny as to the need and effectiveness of the process. Reading between the lines, this means “you can’t just automatically approve affirmative action plans. You have to show they are really necessary and do what they are supposed to do”

Held: Because the Fifth Circuit did not hold the University to the demanding burden of strict scrutiny articulated in Grutter and Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U. S. 265, its decision affirming the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to the University was incorrect. Pp. 5–13.
(a) Bakke, Gratz, and Grutter, which directly address the question considered here, are taken as given for purposes of deciding this case.In Bakke’s principal opinion, Justice Powell recognized that stateuniversity “decisions based on race or ethnic origin . . . are reviewable
under the Fourteenth Amendment,” 438 U. S., at 287, using a strictscrutiny standard, id., at 299. He identified as a compelling interestthat could justify the consideration of race the interest in the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body, but noted thatthis interest is complex, encompassing a broad array “of qualifications and characteristics of which racial or ethnic origin is but a single though important element.” Id., at 315
In Gratz and Grutter, the Court endorsed these precepts, observing that an admissions process with such an interest is subject to judicialreview and must withstand strict scrutiny, Gratz, supra, at 275, i.e., a university must clearly demonstrate that its “ ‘purpose or interest isboth constitutionally permissible and substantial, and that its use ofthe classification is “necessary . . . to the accomplishment” of its purpose,’ ” Bakke, supra, at 305.

One argument the NYT mentions is that the first part OF the program, the “no race consideration” only produces a diverse result because the indiidual high schools are de facto segregated. When you take the top 10% or so from every high school, you get a large number of blacks and hispanics (regardless of their marks) because a large number of neighbourhoods are mostly minorities and the result of a race-free geographic quotas was essentially race quotas.

It seems to me the SCOTUS just said “look closer”.

[Hippy_Hollow]

There aren’t any quotas. They were found unconstitutional in Bakke. Essentially, SCOTUS wants the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to demand that UT provide evidence that they cannot achieve diversity (which is a compelling interest from Bakke to Grutter) without affirmative action.

SCOTUS did not repeal or narrow Grutter, which is encouraging. (As a UT faculty member and a researcher on diversity, I support affirmative action.) This is really the best possible outcome. Many of us were surprised that the Supremes granted cert, and this is essentially the same outcome (with additional drama of oral arguments).

[lawbuff]

@KarlGauss

Today, in an “affirmative action” case, the decision was to send it back to the lower court for reconsideration. What does this mean? Did SCOTUS clarify the law for the lower court and then say, ‘now, go apply it’?

Thanks!

Here is an example of a REMAND on a famous Ohio case, the federal constitution does NOT require a police officer tell a person he is “free to go” before dismissing him.

…The Supreme Court of Ohio having held otherwise, its judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. …

Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (1996)

Robinette 2;

(No. 94-1143 — Submitted June 11, 1997 — Decided November 12, 1997.)

ON REMAND from the United States Supreme Court, No. 95-891.

1997-ohio-343.pdf

As a seperate note, at times they dismiss a case as “improvidently granted” after granting Certiorari.

Or as in Baker v. Nelson, the famous same sex marriage case of 1971, they dismissed it for “want of a substantial federal question”, but don’t let that phraseology fool you, it is precedent.

[lawbuff]

@KarlGauss

Thank you.

Wouldn’t the Certiorari process have uncovered the need for such a remand? Or does it require too much analysis for the limited time available during that process? (I thought that granting Certiorari meant that there were fundamental questions at stake, not that the Lower Court needed to do more due diligence)

Granting Certiorari only takes 4 Justices, called the “Rule of Four”.

[lawbuff]

@AK84

They did grant certiorari and heard the case on merits. While you are right that certiorari is granted for those cases which raise issues of national importance (the case here I reckon) and do not get into cases which are settled law, particularly egregious errors can and a reversed, even if they do not come under the normal criterion.Ai remember reading that the Roberts court has been granting many more summery reversals than before as well as GVR’s..

SC Rule 10 has some reasons for granting certiorari.

[BigT]

Still don’t get the diversity thing. Of course Affirmative Action is needed for diversity if it is defined as having enough people of certain races. The only way to make sure something has happened is to make it happen in the first place.

I had always thought that diversity should have to be defined differently–diversity in thought. And then there’s no reason for Affirmative Action. Just do quotas of people with different philosophies.

But apparently the Supreme Court doesn’t see it either of those two ways. So how are they defining diversity?

[deltasigma]

@friedo

Yep, that’s basically it. In general this type of thing is called a remand. An appellate court can remand a case back to a trial court or lower appellate court. In this case, the Supreme Court has remanded the case back to the Fifth Circuit, with clarifications on how to interpret certain unsettled aspects of the law. It’s now up the lower court to issue a new decision with the Supreme Court’s directions in mind.

Some specifics from the syllabus

But fairness to the litigants and the courts that heard the case requires that it be remanded so that the admissions process can be considered and judged under a correct analysis. In determining whether summary judgment in the University’s favor was appropriate, the Fifth Circuit must assess whether the University has offered sufficient evidence to prove that its admissions program is narrowly tailored to obtain the educational benefits of diversity.

@BigT

Still don’t get the diversity thing. Of course Affirmative Action is needed for diversity if it is defined as having enough people of certain races.

I get the impression it’s more complicated. Also from the syllabus

In Bakke’s principal opinion, Justice Powell recognized that state university “decisions based on race or ethnic origin . . are reviewable under the Fourteenth Amendment,” 438 U. S., at 287, using a strict scrutiny standard, id., at 299. He dentified as a compelling interest that could justify the consideration of race the interest in the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body, but noted that this interest is complex, encompassing a broad array “of qualifications and characteristics of which racial or ethnic origin is but a single though important element.”

[Northern_Piper]

Note as well that the Supreme Court’s power with respect to lower state courts is not as broad as its powers with respect to lower federal courts, which is relevant to what it means when it sends a matter back for further consideration.

When the Court is hearing an appeal from a federal court, it can tell the lower court what to do, since by definition it’s just a question of federal law. So for instance in the Prop 8 case, I understand that the Court remitted it to the circuit court, with instructions to vacate their decision and restore the decision of the federal district court.

However, when a case is on appeal from a state court, the Supreme Court can only rule on matters of federal law raised by the case, normally federal constitutional issues. It cannot rule on issues of state law. So if the Court concludes that the state court erred on the federal issue, it can allow the appeal, set aside the state court decision, but then remit it to the state court for “further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision.”

Now sometimes, given the nature of the issue, that may in fact be decisive, if the matter of federal law was so central to the state court decision that there is no point in further proceedings in the state court. However, in some cases, there still may be a reason to proceed.

For instance, if the Supreme Court has ruled in a criminal case that the state court erred by admitting a piece of evidence which should have been excluded, in some cases that evidence may be so central to the DA’s case that there’s no point in proceeding. In other cases, though, the DA may conclude that even with that piece of evidence excluded, he still has a reasonable case against the accused, and will re-institute proceedings, if that’s permitted under the state’s criminal procedure. At the new trial, the evidence that was in issue cannot be admitted, but the rest of the trial proceeds under state law.