Talk:McCleskey v. Kemp

This article was nominated for deletion on December 11, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Some Proposed Changes

Hello, I am employed by Boston University's Fineman & Pappas Law Libraries. After reviewing this Wikipedia page, I believe that information from one of our faculty's scholarship might provide a valuable addition to this page. I would appreciate it if this requested edit could be reviewed.

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Add to the end of the Impact section:

Some academics have argued that the impact of McCleskey v. Kemp has largely been overstated.^[1] Even though McCleskey v. Kemp seems to dismiss statistical racial disparities as doctrinally irrelevant in equal protection claims, admissions statistics have been used in judicial opinions, such as Grutter v. Bollinger.^[2]^[3]

Cf2022 (talk) 08:00, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Cf2022[reply]

Done Ferkijel (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Feingold, Jonathan (2018). "Eyes Wide Open: What Social Science Can Tell Us About the Supreme Court's Use of Social Science". Northwestern University Law Review. 112.
^ Feingold, Jonathan (2018). "Eyes Wide Open: What Social Science Can Tell Us About the Supreme Court's Use of Social Science". Northwestern University Law Review. 112.
^ Devins, Neal (2003). "Explaining Grutter v. Bollinger". 152. University of Pennsylvania Law Review.

[1] Feingold, Jonathan (2018). "Eyes Wide Open: What Social Science Can Tell Us About the Supreme Court's Use of Social Science". Northwestern University Law Review. 112.

[2] Feingold, Jonathan (2018). "Eyes Wide Open: What Social Science Can Tell Us About the Supreme Court's Use of Social Science". Northwestern University Law Review. 112.

[3] Devins, Neal (2003). "Explaining Grutter v. Bollinger". 152. University of Pennsylvania Law Review.

[1]

[2]

[3]