more abigail fishers. college officials are going to have to scramble to show that they are considering other factors about students. socio-economic backgrounds, family backgrounds, that kind of stuff, before they look at race. so for those of us who are with kids, applying to college, affirmative action is still in place, but no question this battle will continue and get back here to the supreme court in the next few years. and abigail fisher, she graduated from lsu this year. >> all right, terry. thank you. of course more big decisions from the court to come. >>> and tonight, the world is offering prayers for nelson mandela, the south african freedom fighter has taken a turn for the worse. the 94-year-old in critical condition tonight surrounded by family, as he battles a lung infection. and abc's ron claiborne is there. >> reporter: we're getting very few details about the condition of nelson mandela except that it's not changed. south african president jacob zuma said today, he's getting the best medic

the petitioner in the court, abigail fisher, is a white woman who accused the university of texas for rejecting her based on her race. the supreme court ordered the lower court to decide under a harsher standard. the supreme court also struck potential blows to workers who allege sexual harassment and discrimination with a pair of decisions on monday. in the first case, the court narrowly defined a worker's supervisor as someone who can change their employment status, limiting legal protection. in a separate ruling, the court backed a tighter standard for workers to prove they had been the victims of retaliation after complaining about discrimination. both rulings were decided by a 5-4 vote. ruth bader ginsburg called on congress to overturn them with new laws. the proposal by republican senators bob corker and john havens would nearly double the number of border agents, expand the use of drones, and construct hundreds of miles of border fencing. in total, the plan would cost $40 billion over the next decade. the report spurred a dozen republicans to throw support behind a reform bill

the case in question is fisher versus the university of texas. 22-year-old abigail fisher says she was unfairly discriminated against because she is white. at the moment colleges can take into account a candidate's color when deciding who to admit. this because it increases racial diversity on campus. at here is our correspondent ben white. >> for decades college campuses have been the frontline of america's struggle with race. >> now i finally tonight you admission to the university of mississippi. meredithrs ago james was denied a position at the university of mississippi because he was black. in the years sense, the u.s. has tried to level opportunities were black and minority students through affirmative action. and that is why campuses like this one better reflect the racial mix of america. it has always been contentious. is its role now redundant? >> i think in the united states which is increasingly diverse, we cannot have a legal regime that sorts people according to skin color and national origin. >> critics hope that abigail fisher's argument persuades the court to pass a swe

abigail fisher said she considered that a victory. >> they gave us everything that we asked for and i'm very confident that u.t. won't be able to use race in the future. >> reporter: but bill powers, the president of the university of texas, also was claiming victory saying he thought the affirmative action program will withstand the tougher scrutiny. >> today's ruling will have no impact on admissions decisions that we have already made or any immediate impact on the immediate impact on the holistic admissions process at the university of texas. >> reporter: the ruling prompted a strong separate opinion by justice clarence thomas. he said arguments used to support affirmative action were similar to now denounced arguments of slaveholders and segregationists over what was good for black people. but with today's ruling, affirmative action survives. the question is for how long? the justices already agreed to hear an even bigger case this coming fall on affirmative action and admissions and in hiring and, scott, that chase may not be so easy for the justices to punt. >> pelley: jan crawfo

this case starts with a young woman by the name of abigail fisher here. was tenied admission by the university of texas. abigail fisher turned around and sued, claiming nonwhites were admitted with lower grades than hers. today the high court refused to decide that case directly but said a lower court was wrong in ruling against abigail fisher. so this case now goes back to that lower court with a note from the supreme saying this go round, texas has to prove that using a racial standard is the only way of ensuring diversity. got it? we're going to talk about that a little later. >>> glamorous sex parties. erotic dancers. and sex with this woman. a 17-year-old moroccan born prostitute known as ruby the heart stealer. behind closed doors this was the life for former prime minister sill vio berlusconi. his sordid past is catching up with him. he's just been sentenced to seven years in prison, found guilty of sex with a minor, banned from ever entering politics again. live with me from milan senior international correspondent, ben wedeman. before we walk thr

the case involves abigail fisher, who sued the university of texas as austin claiming she was unfairly rejected for admission compared to less qualified minority students who got in. the ruling chastised the lower court for not applying strict scrutiny in the case, meaning that lower court failed to make the university demonstrate that there were tno other ways to achieve diversity than by race. fisher seems undaunted. >> i'm very honored. we have more work to do but i'm looking forward to the next steps in the process. of course we're happy with it. they gave us everything that we asked for. i'm very confident that u.t. wouldn't be able to use race in the future. >> abigail fisher did not file her lawsuit out of the blue. she was hand picked by edward bloom, whose group bankrolled her. supreme court rulings on that case and same-sex marriage are also expected this week. so no sweeping verdict on affirmative action today, but there is a new caveat to the college admissions process. schools will have to show the policy is absolutely necessary to achieve diversity on campus. and joining

he said he would not have to pay a single cent in legal cost, and abigail fisher now lent her name tohe case. >> there were people in my class with lower grades that were not in all of the activities i was that were being accepted and the only other difference in between us was the color of our skin. i was taught any kind of discrimination was wrong. >> he had bigger sights, taking down the voting rights act something he failed to do in 2009 and one day while cruising the department of justice's website, he saw there was a rejection of a voting map in a small town. he acted quickly and called the attorney for that town, and the two men clicked. ellis said he had been chaffing under section 5 and was intrigued by his call. ellis agrees to bring suit on behalf of shelby county voting the voting rights act was outdated. fisher versus the university of texas is before the supreme court right now. we are awaiting those rulings, because he went out to find the perfect people to make this case. he is funded by god knows who may be responsible for genuine dismantling of law to make this count

. >>> the supreme court kicked the case abigail fisher brought against the university of texas back to a lower court. fish he shall schooled the school claiming she was not admitted partly because she is white. >> i hope the court rules student's race and ethnicity should not be applied. >> factors in race, test scores and student activities to help select freshman class. lawyers for the school argued the policy is necessary to improve diversity. >> most americans would like a day when we don't need to take race and ethnicity newly account. -- into account. we are not to that dpa. >> the justices ruled 7-1 that the lower courts did not use the right standard to decide if the policy is constitutional. they want that court to take another look. >> justice thomas said he would have gone further saying race should not be a factor for university admissions. justice ruth was the only justice to vote against the ruling. >> reporter: and we're still waiting for some big rulings from the court on same-sex marriage and voting rights. the court will hand down more decisions tomorrow morning. live

. >> it was interesting because of this case some questioned whether abigail fisher was suitable plaintiff on this and there's been curious questions about standing before the supreme court because as noted on sko tus blog, fisher wouldn't have been admitted to the university's freshman class under any circumstances regardless of her race because of her academic credentials they weren't strong enough. does this mean the supreme court has given -- they've said it had the standing well enough to be there but they want to push it back to texas. >> that's right. there were all kinds of fights and arguments on both sides about whether she was the right person to bring this case. the supreme court found no difficulties there at all. her case is going forward. they believe she has a legitimate challenge to the affirmative action program. what it did not do is answer the ultimate question everybody thought we might be getting particularly because this case was argued way back in october and we went to today and we got a 7-1 ruling very short, has very little controversy, and it looks like inside t

abigail fisher, who's white, applied to the university of texas in 2008, and she didn't get in.tive action policies, and she sued. today the supreme court hand down a cautious ruling, sending abigail's case back down to the lower court, where texas will have to show it uses race as a last resort, not a prime factor in the admissions process. so what do you think? should colleges and universities seek diversity on campus by considering a student's race? or should the affirmative action experiment come to an end? you can join the conversation on the "nightline" facebook page or tweet us @nightline or ytd

and there was an affirmative action case involving abigail fisher versus the university of texas at austin, which asks whether it's constitutional to consider race in college admissions. the court sent the case back to a federal appeals court for review, but it did raise the bar for affirmative action admissions requirements. the justices imposed what some call a warning to colleges nationwide that they'll be held to a tougher legal standard to prove that there are no workable race-neutral alternatives to achieve diversity on campus. the ftc is said to be taking a close look at google's recent billion-dollar acquisition. the search engine giant bought navigation app-maker waze for $1.1 billion earlier this month. according to the wall street journal, the commission is re-crunching the numbers to find out if google purchased waze to put it out of business, paving the way for less competition for google maps. britain's vodafone could have a ticket into the critical european market with its acquisition of kabel deutschland. the u.k.-based mobile operator has agreed to a takeover deal of germa

abigail fisher who applied to the university of texas and was turned down finished her studies at lsu is out in the working world, has to prove what university of texas did was harmful to her. and university of texas says whether we considered race or didn't consider race, you weren't going to get admitted anyway, didn't matter. for the conservatives to rule taking this case as the case where somebody got done wrong may have been a bridge from the facts too far. they are looking for something more sympathetic of a plaintiff and where the educational system misstepped in a bigger way. texas decisions based on race were knew answer. they took each individual into account had is what the supreme court said ten years ago you got to do. they may be looking for a government enltty that uses race far more for a proxy than other stuff. tavis: on the other side, what case to the extent they have to deal with this and in this society multiculture, multieth nick america ever, it's going to have to be dealt with some place, what's the optimal case they were looking for 1234 >> in ways texas was o

abigail fisher said she considered that a victory. >> they gave us everything that we asked for. confident that u.t. won't be able to use race in the future. >> reporter: but bill powers, the president of the university of texas, also was claiming victory, saying he thought the affirmative action program will withstand the scrutiny. >> today's ruling will have no impact on decisions that we've already made. or any immediate impact on the holistic process at the university of texas. >> reporter: the narrow ruling brought a tougher ruling by justice thomas. he said that affirmative action, similar to now denounced aguments of slaveholders and segregationists. if the ruling stands, the question is for how long. the justices have already agreed to hear an even bigger case on affirmative action admissions and on hiring. and that may not be so much easier to punt. jan crawford, cbs news, the supreme court. >>> well, coming up after your local news on "cbs this morning," the creator of the discovery channel, john hendricks will be in the studio. and we'll take you inside a longtime inst

this was challenged by abigail fisher, turned down five years ago. >> i am grateful to the justices, in moving closer to a day when race isn't used at all in college admissions. >> reporter: distinctions based on race are always legally suspect. because of that, wrote justice kennedy, schools must show that no workable race neutral alternatives would produce the educational benefits of diversity. the lone dissenter, ruth bader ginsburg, said that texas already passed that test. civil rights advocates relieved that opponents didn't get their wish, an outright ban. >> what they wanted was a reversal, to strike down the plan. they didn't get that. >> there were a number of directions that the justices could have turned in today's ruling and the 7-1 ruling represents a positive outcome for the university, for the state and for the nation. >> reporter: but the decision will undoubtedly invite more lawsuits, forcing some schools to rely on economic background or experience overcoming diversity instead of race to get a diverse campus. author on affirmative action cases says diversity may be

abigail fisher, who's white, applied to the university of texas in 2008, and she didn't get in. she blamed the school's affirmative action policies, and she sued. today the supreme court hand down a cautious ruling, sending abigail's case back down to the lower court, where texas will have to show it uses race as a last resort, not a prime factor in the admissions process. so what do you think? should colleges and universities seek diversity on campus by considering a student's race? or should the affirmative action experiment come to an end? you can join the conversation on the "nightline" facebook page or tweet us @nightline or yt ytd @terrymoran. tune in to "good morning america" tomorrow. as always we're online at abcnews.com. good night, america. >>. >> clouds fog drizzle hang over the bay area. live picture from the emeryville camera as showers move through second day and it looks like we are headed for a third. good evening. carolyn has the night off. let's get to spencer live doppler 7 hd. so strange this time of year. >> you are right. pretty much sum up the current wea

. >> reporter: the case was brought by abigail fisher, who claimed she was denied admission to the university of texas at austin because she is white. >> i hope the court rules that race and ethnicity should not be considered when applying to the university of texas. >> reporter: but the university of texas, like most major american universities, does consider race and ethnicity in order to promote diversity in the student body. the university's vice president for diversity and community engagement says so many factors are considered, the decision of who to admit never turns on race alone. >> diversity, and must be more appointed, racial diversity is used as one factor among many. so much so that it's very difficult to pinpoint, oh, that student would have gotten in if they were white or if that student would are got in because they're black. what we know is that there are african-american students who are denied admission with higher credentials than white students. >> reporter: lawyers for the obama administration, in defense of affirmative action, pressed that claim to a skeptical supreme

texas case. >> abigail fisher challenged the university of texas to admit her. she said it was based on 14th amendment discriminatory action. they're admission policy which uses race at one factor was discriminatory and the court today decided that the first part of the admissions process, which is to take 10% of the high school classes around the state were fine. but the federal one that allows race to be one component was one in which the lower court had not scrutinized. so the court sent the case back down to the circuit for further review. >> how did it progress all the way up to the supreme court? >> well abigail fisher was one of those high school students who did not meet that 10% requirement. she then applied under incentive process which take other concern into account. whether or not a student is in a single parent household, if english language is the language spoken in the household and all of these different soc.^ owe economic factors. she was not admitted. she said it was the racial factor that prevented her admission and then she sued.. >> does th

the texas case, the university of texas, where the young woman who you just saw on the screen, abigail fisherhad been excluded, that they have to go back and have the program reassessed. important, gwen, he didn't backtrack from the 1978 bacchi decision or the 2003 gerutter decision. gwen: for now. >> but there was almost the same sort of warning shots that pete was referring to in 2009 on voting rights here in this case. and what it essentially said was that the lower court had used the proper standard but used it too generously toward the university. >> what the court is basically saying is it's ok to have diversity. but universities have to almost prove that they tried everything accept a race conscious program to get that diversity. and the court shouldn't take their word for it. they should give them -- gwen: there were a lot of things they had in that lump but as long as race was part of it, they could consider regional, geographical diversity and consider all sorts of things but race always is a thing that makes people go, no, that's a bridge too far. >> and one of the things about thi

it means more lawsuits, probably, more abigail fishers.scramble to show they're considering other factors about students, socioecomonic, family background, that kind of thing before they look at race. for those of us with kids applying to college this year, affirmative action is still in place. but there is no question this debate, this legal battle will continue and make it back here to the supreme court in the next few years. as for abigail fisher, she graduated from lsu this year. terry moran, abc news, the supreme court. >>> it was four years ago today that michael jackson died. to mark the occasion, madame tussau tussauds' wax museum in london unveiled three figures depicting jackson in different stages. actors posed with the figures. the king of pop died after an overdose of the powerful anesthetic propofol. dr. conrad murray serving a four year sentence. >>> one of apple's first computers will fetch top bid when it goes up for auction. this apple one personal computer was hand built back in 1976, a product of the garage-born busines

plaintiff abigail fisher will speak out any moment. rejected from ut austin because she is white. not because of her grades. that was her contention. and she maintains that that is a form of discrimination. the college says it is affirmative action then went to battle over whether that is legal. a question we still do not know the answer to today. shannon live outside of the supreme court with more. shannon? >> reporter: this is argued back in october. we have been waiting months to find out what the justices would say about the use of affirmative action in college admissions. what we found out, is they are kicking this back down to lower courts knowing this very case could end up right back here on the u.s. supreme court steps within a matter of time. essentially this is what the justices had to say about the case. the lower court did not apply the highest standard of reviews. strict scrutiny. meaning that any school using admissions policy using race must show there is a compelling government interest and if there is no other neutral

abigail fisher claims she was rejected by the university of texas back in 2008 because she was white.e she is after the decision today. >> it has been a great privilege to see how our legal system works. the most important lesson i have learned is to stick by your ideals even if it means personal sacrifice. >> michael: anthony kennedy wrote . . . ruth bader ginsberger said quote . . . >> michael: yeah, it was a bit confusing but that is always how i feel after these rulings come down. the court also agreed to decide whether the president violated the constitution when he bypassed the senate and made three appointments to the national labor relations board. they did not make a ruling on doma or same-sex marriage issue. we're joining by "the huffington post" supreme court correspondent, mike sachs. thanks as always, mike, for joining us in "the war room." i love the matthew iglasias tweet, because that's what it is all about. guess what mike you are the lawyer we are asking today. can you explain fisher versus ut. >> yeah, the supreme court said the lower court did not review closely en

the original law was filed on behalf of abigail fisher who claims she was denied admission to the universitiedtexas because she is white. the university also arghus fisher would not have gotten in on academic merit regardless of her race. next up are two major cases for gay rights. hollingsworth v perry, which took up prop 8. it is unlikely the court will issue a sweeping decision invalidating all same-sex marriage bans. it's more likely the court will deny to review the law which will legal size marriage in california again. and then doma the 1996 law barring the federal government from offering marriage benefits to same-sex couples. if struck down a married couple could receive the full range of benefits afforded to straight cull .s. back in march a majority sounded sceptical. if a ruling is announced this week, it will coincide with gay pride week. let's hope the supreme court gives them a reason to celebrate big. coming up will international obama prove more popular than domestic obama? democratic strategist peter fenn will talk to us about that after the break. plus the immigration bill.

the supreme court released their highly anticipated decision in the affirmative action case of abigail fisher sued her university after her application was rejected claiming it was because she was white. in a deciding 7-1 decision they threw the case to the lower courts. they were thrown the case, and they returned a punt. with us is the great alexis mcgail job son and almost as great rick unger, and strategist returning to the show for more abuse, the lovely dee dee benkle. the court did affirm the use of race to enhance academic diversity in the administration process, but essentially avoided the larger constitutional issues. is this decision the right way? >> it was not a great case. they had to punt it back to the lower courts so that the standard for which diversity is being measured for racial diversity is being measured, texas had an opportunity to prove whether or not they were meetingmeeting that standard strictly. i think it's a great decision for those of us who believe that affirmative action, that the decision in grooter to up hold diversity is compelling is an important and exci

abigail fisher is the plaintiff in the case. she was denied admission and said it was because of race. she's holding a news conference this afternoon. her legal team is seeing this as a win because they believe the court has laid the ground work for striking down race based admission. >> the justices, the nine justices as you well know and you were over at the supreme court all morning are set to make three more mayor case decisions. explain what's going on. >> reporter: that's right. yet to be decided among the top tier cases, as we call them, is an issue relating to the voting rights act of 1965. the question is whether section 5 is constitutional in way that congress reauthorized it in 2 6 2006. then there's the two gay marriage cases. one relates to proposition 8 in california. that was the state initiative determining that marriage is between a man and a woman. the other is about the defense of marriage act or doma as it's called and whether individuals in same sex marriage cases ought to get the same federal benefits as st

in my learning and experience that is what often confuses students like abigail fisher.y life, interpersonal relations seem to be good and they are not generally aware of studies you've pointed out that racial disparity still exists. when i spoke to conservative whites around the country, they say, we are not racist. i say the point is to look at structural issues, practices that leave us with as much residential segregation and educational segregation as we had a generation ago. >> so your book looks at the question of where is the racism and says for 2013 that may be the wrong question. >> exactly. we have to look at social engineering, transportation policies, laws, practices that socially engineer society with racist results we have to say. i say that with the affirmative action and quote, unquote, racial positive policies, we're told that's racial engineering, you can't change human nature, but all public policy is social engineering. the question is what effect do you want to have. >> jelani that goes to the subject we were discussing with nick from a conservative

. >> abigail fisher was a type of student who did not reach that 10% requirement. she then applied for the second class, which takes different issues. for example, whether or not a student is in a single parent household, english language spoken in the household. she still wasn't admitted but she said one fact is it would be racial factor that prevented her admission and she sued. >> does this decision have broad implications or kicking the can down the road. >> if we're kicking it down the road, where it will fall and remain there because at this point, what justice kennedy said in reading the decision that he wrote, said, we're going back to a time in which the reviewing courts, when they decide whether or not race can be taken into account, have to look at whether or not there's some other race-neutral alternative that would produce the same benefit of diversity. so if we're taking race out, say wearing going to the court and say that is what we're going to do. so where is the 300 years of racial discrimination against people of color when we're saying we're not

a white applicant, abigail fisher, sued after she was denied admission, sending the case back to theer court, justice kennedy wrote, strict scrutiny imposes on the ufrpt the ultimate burden of demonstrating before turning to racial classifications that available, workable race-neutral alternatives do not suffice. for now, the school policies remain intact. >> very technical. the bottom line, affirmative action is still the law of the land. >> reporter: opponents of use of race in college admissions believe though it may be delayed, they have a path to victory. >> incredibly high hurdles for universities and colleges must be overcome if they intend to continue using race preferences in their admissions policies. >> i am very confident ut won't be able to use race in the future. >> reporter: we are awaiting six opinions, including those on the voting rights act and same-sex marriage. the court will take up the case of the president's recess appointments to the national labor relations board. a federal court struck down appointments as unconstitutional, finding the senate was not in rec

abigail fisher sued saying she was denied admission because she's white.she claims that violates her 14th amendment right to equal protection. she's saying i should have gotten into the school, but i'm white and i was denied over african-americans and other minorities who she says was less qualified. so will the court draw a new line on state based and perhaps even more broadly affirmative action questions. and the school is making the case that race is viable as one factor as long as you have several factors in trying to develop a diverse student body. that is the big case there. what do the american people think? let's take a look. this is being done by the nine justices, but in the court of public opinion, you see nearly 7 in 10 americans think this is wrong. that state based schools should not be able to use race as a factor in admissions policies. that's a pretty striking number. but remember that's the court of public opinion. and there is a breakdown probably not surprising to you, whites are overwhelmingly against this, nonwhite as majority approve

are been -- thomas is considering the vote to uphold fisher's case which is the case about abby abigail fisher university texas in which she claims race was the primary reason she was rejected for admission. you say he's not paying attention to his own history of where he came from to get where he is. >> one of the thins many people can't federal government out about clarence thomas, here is a fellow that has had all the benefits going back to yale law school, assistant secretary of education, a position on the federal judiciary and supreme court. every step of the way, he's had let's just say patrons. every step of the way, he's had the benefit of affirmative action. what many can't figure out, why the vehemencp. obviously many people have issues about affirmative action. but the passion, almost the pathological need to really hit at affirmative action, that's the thing that has puzzled so many people and including me. and we'll see it manifested. he's already tipped his hand how he'll vote in the fisher case. but it's still going to be and ongoing issue. many people will continue to ask, mr.

abigail fisher, a white woman, sued after being denied admission at u.t., claiming minorities with inferior qualifications were admitted instead. i made what i thought was a practical, political observation, if affirmative action is running out of support in 2013, imagine how hard it will be defend the necessity come 2050 when whites will collectively be a minority in comparison of people of color. melissa responded there were more important considerations than the raw numbers in demographics. she said, "the reason affirmative action exists is because for 300 years we had legalized slavery, and then we had another 100 years of segregation based on jim crow." she thought it would be grossly premature to say that after many years of legalized discrimination based on one factor, race, it's now time to get rid of affirmative action. she told me she was only 1 of 20 or so blacks in law school at u.t. and said that there were only seven black men in the entire class that followed her in law school, the class of 2000. more important than just population data, she said, will be questions of who is

abigail fisher sued the university of texas arguing she was rejected because she's white. >> i hope theent's race and ethnicity should not be considered when applying to the university of texas. >> reporter: the school says race is one of many factors it uses to achieve diversity on campus. court watchers say anthony kennedy could side with conservative justices to overturn or limit a major supreme court decision from ten years ago that allowed affirmative action. justices are also dealing with another hot button issue -- same-sex marriage. >> marriage is between one man and one woman. you guys won't accept it. >> reporter: considering whether california's proposition 8 ban is constitutional and in a second case, if the defense of marriage act can deny same-sex couples the same federal benefits as heterosexual ones. >> i think it's going to be good. >> reporter: that case was brought by edith windsor, a new york woman who had to pay higher estate taxes after her wife died than someone in a heterosexual marriage would have. >> i think it is highly likely the supreme court will invalidate

we know the fact is abigail fisher would not have been admitted to u.t. austin regardless of her race. we know the fact matters u.t. has a much more modest plan, university of texas does, than even the michigan plan. they're trying to rewrite history in order to rewrite the future. fortunately, the court, at least the majority of justices certainly did not take that step with justice thomas. >> the court did not kill off affirmative action, higher education. it remanded it down to the lower court, appellate court and said you need to apply strict scrutiny as your standard review. look carefully at the arguments the university of texas is making in defense of using a racial consideration. what is next for this case and the broader constitutional arguments around affirmative action? >> in some ways, chris, it's not much of a surprise. the court simply articulated a standard we all pretty much understood in the first place that simply said the lower court, perhaps, did not faithfully apply that standard. we at the naacp legal defense and educational fund are

>> abigail fisher was one of those high school students who did not meet that 10% requirement. she then applied under the second process which takes a number of different issues or concerns into account. for example, whether or not a student is in a single parent household, if english language the language spoken and all these other factors as well. she still was admitted but she said the cuts one factor was reece petty would the racial factor that prevented her admission and then she said. >> does this decision have broad implications, or is it just kicking the can down the road to? >> if we are kicking the can down the road, we're taking down the road toward a hall where it will fall and remained there. because at this point what justice kennedy said in reading the decision that he wrote, that we're going back to a time in which the reviewing court, when they decide whether or not raise can be taken into account, get look at whether not there some other race neutral alternative that would produce the same educational benefit of that university. so we are taking race have comp

it appears likely abigail fisher will get her way and affirmative action will be fundamentally changed in america and that will be a big change for america. >> i suspect affirmative action will be existing in theory, not in practice. i think justice kennedy will control the middle and have the ultimate decision. he is the decider of this taking away from justice. he will probably say texas affirmative action decision is gone. maybe in some ethereal platonic ideal, we can take race in account. i will never approve of it. >> i hope you are right in some regard. let's also talk about shelby county versus holder, which is the kind of voting rights case. they are challenging section 5 of the voting rights. we know in 2012, voter suppression was running rampant. we had over 160 laos proposed throughout the country and some more pressures in some localized areas protected by section 5. all had to be pre-cleared by d.o.j. shelby county, the lead plaintiff petition ner in this case had over 200 challenges to which sotomayor said, you might be a bad plaintiff for this. when you think about that,

the case was filed if 2008 by abigail fisher, a white student who was rejected from the university offisher has since graduated from louisiana state university. "outfront" tonight, the reverend jesse jackson. always good to talk to you. let me ask you this pointblank -- did the supreme court miss an opportunity today? >> yeah, to the extent that race remains a fact among us. that's a victory because they sought to eliminate it altogether. you know, there were white students that had lower grades than she had. they thought a focus on race was a vulnerable spot in the whole agenda. race is a factor, gender is a factor. it's about trying to remove the most fundamental initial our society. the question of racial justice. >> and let me ask you, you know, clarence thomas obviously took the side here saying, you know, against affirmative action. and most americans right now, reverend, as you're well aware, seem to agree with him. nearly 70% of americans disapprove of affirmative action programs at the college level, at the law school level. and obviously i don't speak as an african-american,

abigail fisher, the young woman who was recruited to bring this lawsuit has long since graduated fromnt college. she has no continuing interest in this matter. it's not a class action. she's the only plaintiff. so the fifth circuit, if i understand federal court procedure, is free to say, thanks for the good advice and this case is finished. >> it seems to me justice kennedy along with all the other justices except for ginsburg and recused kagan were basically arguing that the fifth circuit was wrong to accept the assertion by the school that its admissions process uses race in a permissible way. kennedy wrote, in fact, that the court needed to give a closer analysis to how the practice works in process. that said, there is a mountain of evidence suggesting affirmative action in the admissions progress actually disadvantages the minority applica applicant. so is kennedy suggesting that's the kind of evidence the fifth circuit needs to assess at a greater amount? >> i actually think all he's suggesting is that we got into this case improminently and need a face-saving way out. so we've

under that system abigail fisher, a white honor roll student was denied admission in 2008. in washington today she called the supreme court decision a victory. >> of course we're happy with it. but they gavesverything that we asked for. and i'm very confident that u.t. won't be able to use race in the future. it's been a great journey and a very great learning experience. >> reporter: university of texas president bill powers said he also was encouraged. >> there were a number of directions that the justices could have turned in today's ruling. and this 7-1 ruling represents a positive outcome for this university, for the state, and for the nation. >> reporter: today's decision leaves a number of key questions unanswered in the long litigated field of affirmative action. and it marks the first time in a decade that the justices have weighed in on whether it's constitutional for universities to use race when deciding who they admit. in 2003 the high court voting 5-4 allowed the university of michigan law school to factor race into admissions. the texas case now returns to a

abigail fisher and shelby cou y plaintiffs in the case we finished discussing, the same recruited by o outfit called the project only funded by a tation conservative foundation, this is movement litigation. there is not fisher waking up saying i'm going it sue the university of texas. is not shelby county waking up saying let's go after the voting rights act. is carefully managed litigation and not going to stop. much, nk you very panelists. i think we are agreed fisher makes work for universities, and courts to do. , we turn now to two more of the marquee cases during term of court and they are the same-sex marriage cases, the a case and proposition 8 case. ted olson to tell us about those cases. passing re than a interest so i will turn to you, ted. >> it is a daunting thing to with these two cases which involve so many important to e so ur society and to our culture and to our political life in a short period of time but i will what i can do. first, the good news is from my standpoint as i think most of i represented the two couples who brought the case ition eight hollingsworth ve

so i am hoping that as they looked into this case that they will finally say to abigail fisher, guesshat, most of the people who were admitted under the plan that you are challenging our white. >> reporter: there are several more major decisions outstanding. we expect to get them as soon as tomorrow. the defense of marriage act case in the california proposition a case. and an important voting rights act case. back to you. adam: thank you. lori: to check on the markets. very much in focus. another 200 points when date. that is making a significant ground. nicole petallides on the floor of the new york stock exchange and in particular you're watching apple. >> reporter: it has broken down below that $400 mark moments ago. 399. here it is at $400.67 per share with a loss of about 3% and has sold off below levels that they. what is interesting, breaking below that $400 mark, the first time it is doing so since april 24th. today they came out and lowered the price target to $405 for 420. what happened to the 700, $800,000 targets that we heard from analysts, some concerns about the slowin

abigail fisher and shelby county were both recruited by the same outfit called the project unfair presentation.this is movement litigation. this is not fisher waking up one moment inking, i am going to sue the university of texas area this is not shelby county saying, let's challenge the voting rights act. this is managed litigation. and it's not going to stop. >> with the fact the-- with that, we turn to two more of the marquee cases. they are the same-sex marriage cases -- the doma case and the proposition 8 case. we have ted olson to tell us about those cases. he has more than a passing if i may turnhem. to you, ted. >> it is a daunting thing to attempt to deal with these two cases, which involve so many issues that are important to our society and our culture and to our political life in a short period of time. i will see what i can do. the good news is -- from my standpoint -- i represented the two couples that brought the proposition 8 case involving proposition 8, california's constitutional amendment adopted by the people in 2008 that defined marriage. it said only marriage between a man an