Facts of the Case
In 1997, Barbara Grutter, a white resident of Michigan, applied for admission to the University of Michigan Law School. Grutter applied with a 3.8 undergraduate GPA and an LSAT score of 161. She was denied admission. The Law School admits that it uses race as a factor in making admissions decisions because it serves a "compelling interest in achieving diversity among its student body." The District Court concluded that the Law School's stated interest in achieving diversity in the student body was not a compelling one and enjoined its use of race in the admissions process. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that Justice Powell's opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), constituted a binding precedent establishing diversity as a compelling governmental interest sufficient under strict scrutiny review to justify the use of racial preferences in admissions. The appellate court also rejected the district court's finding that the Law School's "critical mass" was the functional equivalent of a quota.
Questions
Does the University of Michigan Law School's use of racial preferences in student admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Conclusions
-
No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court held that the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the Law School's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body. The Court reasoned that, because the Law School conducts highly individualized review of each applicant, no acceptance or rejection is based automatically on a variable such as race and that this process ensures that all factors that may contribute to diversity are meaningfully considered alongside race. Justice O'Connor wrote, "in the context of its individualized inquiry into the possible diversity contributions of all applicants, the Law School's race-conscious admissions program does not unduly harm nonminority applicants."
A Conflict of Principles: The Battle Over Affirmative Action at the University of Michigan
Engage Volume 16, Issue 3
Note from the Editor: This book review discusses the contentious issue of affirmative action. The Federalist...
Should the Supreme Court Take Note of “Th’ Iliction Returns” Next Time It Addresses Race-Preferential Admissions Policies?
Federalist Society Review, Volume 22
“[N]o matter whether th’ constitution follows th’ flag or not, th’ Supreme Court follows th’...
Accreditation Overreach Part 2
Forcing Affirmative Action on Colleges and Universities
In my last blog post, I drew attention to my Wall Street Journal op-ed, "Why...
A Lady or a Tiger?: Thoughts on Fisher v. University of Texas and the Future of Race Preferences in America
Engage Volume 14, Issue 3 October 2013
Note from the Editor: This article is about the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Fisher...
The Parade of Horribles Lives: Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary
Engage Volume 14, Issue 3 October 2013
Note from the Editor: This article is about the U.S. Supreme Court case Schuette v....
Affirmative Action for Men? Strange Silences and Strange Bedfellows in the Public Debate over Discrimination Against Women in College Admissions
Engage Volume 12, Issue 3, November 2011
While some news reports indicate that discrimination against women on the basis of sex1 in...
Anecdotes as Evidence: Proving Public Contracting Discrimination in a Strict Scrutiny World
Engage Volume 16, Issue 2
Note from the Editor: This article is about the use of anecdotal evidence to justify...
A Roadmap for the Continuing Legal Challenge to Race-Based Admissions
The higher education establishment breathed a sigh of relief in June when the Supreme Court’s...
A Conflict of Principles: The Battle Over Affirmative Action at the University of Michigan
Engage Volume 16, Issue 3
Carl Cohen's book, A Conflict of Principles: The Battle Over Affirmative Action at the University of...
Supreme Court Preview: Fisher
An "Honest" Affirmative Action Defense?
In the long running case of Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, insufficient notice...
Sordid Business: The Supreme Court Confronts the Constitutionality of Racial Preferences in K-12 Education
It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.—Chief Justice Roberts The...
Fisher v. UT–Austin and the Future of Racial Preferences in College Admissions
Federalist Society Review, Volume 17, Issue 2
Note from the Editor: This article discusses the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Fisher v. University...
Solicitor General Francisco Attempts to Fast-Track DACA Litigation to SCOTUS
U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco petitioned the Supreme Court on Monday to grant certiorari before...
Barwatch Bulletin for February 9, 2008
February 9, 2008
ABA President Bill Neukom Press Conference ABA President Bill Neukom hosted a press conference on...
California’s Reparations Plan Founders on the Shoals of Law
No state has more aggressively advanced identitarian essentialism than California. In 2018, California passed a...