Document Type


Publication Date


Publication Information

47 Loy. L. A. L. Rev. 379 (2013-2014)


Despite longstanding rules regarding judicial deference, the Supreme Court’s decisions in its October 2012 Term show that a majority of the Court is increasingly willing to supplant both the prudential and legal judgments of various institutional actors, including Congress, federal agencies, and state universities. Whatever the motivation for such a shift, this Essay simply suggests that today’s Supreme Court is a confident one. A core group of justices has an increasingly self-assured view of the judiciary’s ability to conduct an independent assessment of both the legal and factual aspects of the cases that come before the Court. This piece discusses several cases from the October 2012 Term that illustrate this shift away from deference: Fisher v. University of Texas, Shelby County v. Holder, Vance v. Ball State University, and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. In each case, the Court disregarded calls for judicial deference and instead showed itself poised and willing to actively review federal policy judgments as well as the operational details of state programs. In all, one is left with the impression of a high court that has fully embraced its “ say what the law is.”



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.