SCOUS 对AA裁决的直接意义:
SCOUS的裁决，是针对联邦上诉法庭裁决的判断。而上诉法庭是接了原告对联邦地区法庭裁决的申诉。那么这个案子判了以后，对哈佛的影响是什么？
这个要把最开始原告提出的告案找来看:
原告的要求:
1。要求法庭宣布哈佛违反人权法。
2。要求法庭宣布在教育问题上任何以种族为判据都是违反人权法。
3。永远禁止哈佛以种族因素决定本科生的录取。
4。永远禁止哈佛在录取过程中的人员知道被录取人的种族身分。
5。哈佛需要支付本案法律费用。
6。任何除上述之外的法庭认为正当的裁决。
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., prays for the
following relief as to all counts:
(a) A declaratory judgment, pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28
U.S.C. § 2201, from the Court that Harvard’s admissions policies and procedures violate
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.;
(b) A declaratory judgment, pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28
U.S.C. § 2201, from the Court that any use of race or ethnicity in the educational setting
violates the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.;
(c) A permanent injunction prohibiting Harvard from using race as a factor in
future undergraduate admissions decisions;
(d) A permanent injunction requiring Harvard to conduct all admissions in a
manner that does not permit those engaged in the decisional process to be aware of or
learn the race or ethnicity of any applicant for admission;
(e) Attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and any other
applicable legal authority; and
(f) All other relief this Court finds appropriate and just.
