[BostonCard]

I don't think that's correct.  The top 10% law is not under challenge in the USSC; rather an affirmative action program instituted by the University of Texas Austin for a portion of the roughly 20% of incoming freshmen not covered by the top-10% rule.

The top-10% rule initially started because of a court case that had ruled affirmative action illegal in Texas (Hopwood vs. Texas, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopwood_v._Texas, which was decided in the 5th circuit court of appeals).  However, the door was re-opened for affirmative action in Texas (and other states covered by the 5th circuit) by a ruling of the US Supreme Court about a case in Michigan (Grutter v. Bolliinger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger).  Affirmative action is again being argued in front of the US Supreme Court, but that should not have an effect on the top-10% rule.

BC

[BostonCard]

I don't think that's correct.  The top 10% law is not under challenge in the USSC; rather an affirmative action program instituted by the University of Texas Austin for a portion of the roughly 20% of incoming freshmen not covered by the top-10% rule.

The top-10% rule initially started because of a court case that had ruled affirmative action illegal in Texas (Hopwood vs. Texas, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopwood_v._Texas, which was decided in the 5th circuit court of appeals).  However, the door was re-opened for affirmative action in Texas (and other states covered by the 5th circuit) by a ruling of the US Supreme Court about a case in Michigan (Grutter v. Bolliinger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger).  Affirmative action is again being argued in front of the US Supreme Court, but that should not have an effect on the top-10% rule.

BC