Grutter v. Bollinger

Affirmative action
Affirmative action
Affirmative action by state
Affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws
Affirmative action and anti-discrimination lawsuits
Civil Rights Act of 1866
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Consideration of race in college admissions

Grutter v. Bollinger, a case decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 23, 2003, upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School. The decision permitted the use of racial preference in student admissions to promote student diversity.

Background

In 1996, Barbara Grutter, a white Michigan resident with a 3.8 grade point average and 161 Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) score, was rejected by the University of Michigan Law School. She filed suit against the university in December 1997, alleging that the university had discriminated against her on the basis of race in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She said she was rejected because the law school used race as the "predominant" factor, giving applicants belonging to underrepresented minority groups a significantly greater chance of admission than white and Asian American applicants with similar credentials. She argued that the university had no compelling interest to justify that use of race. The university argued that there was a compelling interest in promoting diversity for educational benefits.

In March 2001, U.S. District Court Judge Bernard Friedman ruled that the admissions policies were unconstitutional because they "clearly consider" race and are "practically indistinguishable from a quota system." In May 2002, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, citing the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke decision and allowing the use of race to further the "compelling interest" of diversity. The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case in 2002.

Decision

On June 23, 2003, in a 5-4 decision, the court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not prohibit the narrowly tailored use of race in university admission plans as part of a compelling interest in promoting student diversity. The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.

O'Connor wrote the following in the majority opinion:

“	Race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time. The Court takes the Law School at its word that it would like nothing better than to find a race-neutral admissions formula and will terminate its use of racial preferences as soon as practicable. The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.	”
—Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

Justice Clarence Thomas

Justices William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas dissented. The dissent was delivered by Thomas, who argued that the state did not have a compelling interest in promoting diversity nor that having a law school is within the state's jurisdiction. He wrote the following in the dissenting opinion:

“	As the foregoing makes clear, Michigan has no compelling interest in having a law school at all, much less an elite one. Still, even assuming that a State may, under appropriate circumstances, demonstrate a cognizable interest in having an elite law school, Michigan has failed to do so here. [...] The equal protection “obligation is imposed by the Constitution upon the States severally as governmental entities–each responsible for its own laws establishing the rights and duties of persons within its borders. It is an obligation the burden of which cannot be cast by one State upon another, and no State can be excused from performance by what another State may do or fail to do. That separate responsibility of each State within its own sphere is of the essence of statehood maintained under our dual system.”	”
—Justice Clarence Thomas

Later developments

Michigan Proposal 2, Affirmative Action Initiative (2006)

Following the decision, petitions were circulated to change the Michigan Constitution. The measure, called the Michigan Proposal 2, Affirmative Action Initiative (2006), passed. The measure banned the use of affirmative action programs in education and public sector job hiring. This measure was overturned by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, but later upheld in 2014 in a 6-2 decision by the Supreme Court in the case Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action.

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina

On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court effectively ended race-based considerations in college admissions through a decision Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina. In the two cases, which were decided in conjunction, plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to overturn the precedent established in Grutter that "student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions." The decision "effectively, though not explicitly, overruled its 2003" decision in Grutter. The ruling explicitly allowed national service academies to continue considering race as a factor in admissions for reasons of national security.

See also

• Gratz v. Bollinger
• Michigan Proposal 2, Affirmative Action Initiative (2006)

External links

• Text of majority opinion
• Text of dissenting opinion