翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ United States v. Drescher ・ United States v. Drew ・ United States v. DuBay ・ United States v. Dunn ・ United States v. E. C. Knight Co. ・ United States v. Eichman ・ United States v. Elcom Ltd. ・ United States v. Emerson ・ United States v. Enmons ・ United States v. Extreme Associates, Inc. ・ United States v. Felix ・ United States v. Fenwick ・ United States v. Feola ・ United States v. Flores-Montano ・ United States v. Florida East Coast Railway Co. ・ United States v. Fordice ・ United States v. Forty Barrels & Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola ・ United States v. Franklin ・ United States v. Freed ・ United States v. Fricosu ・ United States v. Fuentes ・ United States v. Garcia ・ United States v. Gementera ・ United States v. General Dynamics Corp. ・ United States v. General Electric Co. ・ United States v. Georgia ・ United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Co. ・ United States v. Gilmore ・ United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd. ・ United States v. GlaxoSmithKline Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク United States v. Fordice ： ウィキペディア英語版 United States v. Fordice ''United States v. Fordice'', 505 U.S. 717 (1992)〔''United States v. Fordice'', (505 U.S. 717 ) (1992). Findlaw.com. Retrieved 2008-03-07〕 is a United States Supreme Court case that resulted in an eight to one ruling that the eight public universities in Mississippi had not sufficiently integrated and that the state must take affirmative action to change this under the Equal Protection Clause. The Court found that, although the state had eliminated explicit prohibitions on the admission of black students to institutions including the University of Mississippi, Mississippi State University, and the University of Southern Mississippi, the Court of Appeals had not properly reviewed the set of discriminatory policies used by the state to suppress black enrollment at these schools. Four opinions were filed in the case. In addition to Justice White's majority opinion, Justice O'Connor and Justice Thomas filed concurring opinions. Thomas, in particular, expressed a concern that the strict review of policies that divided students by race should not be used against historically black universities in the state. Justice Scalia filed a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, expressing his disagreement with the burden that the Court imposed on universities and his concern that the standards set forth by the Court would create confusion and lead to more litigation. ==References== 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「United States v. Fordice」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.