stating that a Marks holding “must necessarily produce results with which a majority of the Court from that case would agree.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
How later courts described this case
- stating that a Marks holding “must necessarily produce results with which a majority of the Court from that case would agree.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
- holding that “arising under” jurisdiction exists where one invokes a substantive right created by federal bankruptcy law
- “More fundamentally, the holding/dicta distinction demands that we consider binding only that which was necessary to resolve the question before the [Supreme] Court . . . . Any speculation regarding the circumstances under which race could be used was little more than an advisory opinion.”
- sustaining program using race in the admission of students to the University of Michigan School of Law
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*815 SILER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I concur in the dissent by Judge Boggs on the merits. I write separately for the reason that I do not concur in the addition of the procedural appendix, not because I question its accuracy, but because I feel that it is unnecessary for the resolution of this case. If the procedural appendix were not filed, then the responses filed in the concurrences by Judges Moore and Clay would also have been unnecessary.