XIV Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), was a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning affirmative action in student admissions.
What was the Supreme Court decision in Grutter v Bollinger?
Grutter v. Bollinger. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority in a 5–4 decision and joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer,...
What is the significance of Gratz v Bollinger?
The Court upheld the constitutionality of narrowly tailored race-conscious affirmative action programs that further the compelling interest of diversity. This case and its companion, Gratz v. Bollinger , challenged the affirmative action admissions practices of the University of Michigan's law school and undergraduate programs, respectively.
What is the significance of the case of the Bollinger case?
Bollinger took place on April 1st of 2003. The case was filed because Barbara Grutter thought her rejection from the University of Michigan’s law school was unfair. She thought the school accepted minority candidates over her even if those individuals had worse grades than her.
When was the Grutter v Grutter case decided?
This case was decided in 2003. The Supreme Court held that the Constitution supported "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." ACLU Amicus Brief in Grutter v.
What was the decision in Grutter v Bollinger?
5–4 decision 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.
What was the key reason the Court ruled against the plaintiff in Grutter v Bollinger?
In a majority opinion joined by four other justices, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor held that the Constitution "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."
What was the result of Gratz v Bollinger?
Bollinger is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the University of Michigan undergraduate affirmative action admissions policy. In a 6-3 decision announced on June 23, 2003, the Supreme Court ruled that the university's point system was too mechanistic and therefore unconstitutional.
What amendment did Grutter v Bollinger violate?
the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. ConstitutionGrutter alleged that the policy constituted discrimination on the basis of race in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Grutter named Lee Bollinger, President of the University of Michigan at the time, as the defendant.
What year was Grutter v Bollinger?
June 23, 2003Grutter v. Bollinger / Date decided
Which Supreme Court case ruled that racial quotas could not be used?
Bakke decision, formally Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, ruling in which, on June 28, 1978, the U.S. Supreme Court declared affirmative action constitutional but invalidated the use of racial quotas.
What has caused the Supreme Court to weaken affirmative action laws?
What has caused the Supreme Court to weaken affirmative action laws? The Court decided that affirmative action policies must survive strict scrutiny. Some affirmative action policies violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
When did affirmative action programs start?
On September 24, 1965 President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order 11246, prohibiting employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, and national origin by those organizations receiving federal contracts and subcontracts.
What is affirmative action law?
For federal contractors and subcontractors, affirmative action must be taken by covered employers to recruit and advance qualified minorities, women, persons with disabilities, and covered veterans. Affirmative actions include training programs, outreach efforts, and other positive steps.
Which Supreme Court case defined the First Amendment rights of public school students?
v. Des Moines Independent Community School DistrictTinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) established that public school students have First Amendment rights.
What was the main point of the Fourteenth Amendment?
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States—including former enslaved people—and guaranteed all citizens “equal protection of the laws.” One of three amendments passed during the Reconstruction era to abolish slavery and ...
What is the equal protection of law?
Equal Protection refers to the idea that a governmental body may not deny people equal protection of its governing laws. The governing body state must treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.
What has caused the Supreme Court to weaken affirmative action laws?
What has caused the Supreme Court to weaken affirmative action laws? The Court decided that affirmative action policies must survive strict scrutiny. Some affirmative action policies violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
What did affirmative action do?
Affirmative action is defined as a set of procedures designed to; eliminate unlawful discrimination among applicants, remedy the results of such prior discrimination, and prevent such discrimination in the future.
What is the likely effect of the Court's ruling in the Bakke case?
According to the quote, what is the likely effect of the Court's ruling in the Bakke case? Colleges can consider race but cannot use strict racial quotas in admission practices.
Which case limited affirmative action?
Regents of the University of California v. This landmark Supreme Court case imposed limitations on affirmative action to ensure that providing greater opportunities for minorities did not come at the expense of the rights of the majority—affirmative action was unfair if it led to reverse discrimination.
What is Grutter v Bollinger?
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), was a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning affirmative action in student admissions. The Court held that a student admissions process that favors "underrepresented minority groups " does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment 's Equal Protection Clause so long as it takes into account other factors evaluated on an individual basis for every applicant.
What was Sandra Day O'Connor's majority decision in Grutter v. Bollinger?
Cohen of Philadelphia, said that Sandra Day O'Connor 's majority decision in Grutter v. Bollinger was a "ringing affirmation of the goal of an inclusive society.".
What did Justice Rehnquist argue about the law school admissions policy?
Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas, argued the Law School's admissions policy was an attempt to achieve an unconstitutional type of racial balancing. The Chief Justice attacked the Law School's asserted goal of reaching a "critical mass" of minority students, finding the absolute number African-American, Hispanic, and Native American students varied markedly, which is inconsistent with the concept in that one would think the same size critical mass would be needed for all minority groups. He noted that " [f]rom 1995 through 2000, the Law School admitted... between 13 and 19... Native American [s], between 91 and 108... African American [s], and between 47 and 56... Hispanic [s]... One would have to believe that the objectives of 'critical mass' offered by respondents are achieved with only half the number of Hispanics, and one-sixth the number of Native Americans as compared to African Americans." Citing admissions statistics, the Chief Justice noted the tight correlation between the percentage of applicants and admittees of a given race and argued that the numbers were "far too precise to be dismissed as merely the result of the school paying 'some attention to [the] numbers.'"
Why was the Bakke opinion narrowly tailored?
The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that Justice Powell's opinion in Bakke was binding precedent establishing diversity as a compelling state interest, and that the Law School's use of race was narrowly tailored because race was merely a "potential 'plus' factor" and because the Law School's program was virtually identical to the Harvard admissions program described approvingly by Justice Powell and appended to his Bakke opinion.
Which case struck down the points based admissions system?
Bakke (1978), which allowed race to be a consideration in admissions policy but held racial quotas to be unconstitutional. In Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) a separate case decided on the same day as Grutter, the Court struck down a points-based admissions system that awarded an automatic bonus to the admissions scores of minority applicants.
What was the final criticism leveled at Justice O'Connor's opinion?
A final criticism leveled at Justice O'Connor's opinion was the length of time the racial admissions policy will be lawful. Justice Thomas concurred that racial preferences would be unlawful in 25 years, however, he noted that in fact the Court should have found race-based affirmative action programs in higher education unlawful now:
Why was Barbara Grutter denied admission to Michigan Law School?
When the University of Michigan Law School denied admission to Barbara Grutter, a Michigan resident with a 3.8 GPA and 161 LSAT score, she filed this suit, alleging that respondents had discriminated against her on the basis of race in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as 42 U.S.C. § 1981; that she was rejected because the Law School uses race as a "predominant" factor, giving applicants belonging to certain minority groups a significantly greater chance of admission than students with similar credentials from disfavored racial groups; and that respondents had no compelling interest to justify that use of race. Lee Bollinger (then-President of the University of Michigan ), was the named defendant of this case.
What was the Supreme Court decision in Grutter v. Bollinger?
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.
Why was Barbara Grutter rejected from law school?
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.
When did the Supreme Court hear the case of California v Bakke?
The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case in 2002.
What is the significance of the Gratz v. Bollinger case?
Bollinger , challenged the affirmative action admissions practices of the University of Michigan's law school and undergraduate programs, respectively . The two cases were filed in 1997 by white plaintiffs who alleged that the University's use of race violated their constitutional right to equal protection of the laws.
Why did the intervenors support the University?
The intervenors supported the University in its view that a diverse educational environment was beneficial for all students and was a compelling interest. We also argued that the University's use of race in admissions decisions could be justified as a means of remedying past and present discrimination. For example, we presented evidence that many of the other admissions criteria, such as alumni status or test scores, had a racially discriminatory effect on African American and Latino applicants.
Why did the University vigorously defend its use of race in admissions decisions?
The University vigorously defended its use of race in admissions decisions as a means of achieving a diverse student body and asserted that it had a constitutionally sufficient. compelling interest in achieving a diverse student body.
What civil rights organizations intervened in the undergraduate case on behalf of African American and Latino applicants?
A group of civil rights organizations, including the ACLU, the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and a local group of advocates intervened in the undergraduate case on behalf of African American and Latino applicants. Similar local groups intervened in the law school case.
When was the Supreme Court case about race?
This case was decided in 2003. The Supreme Court held that the Constitution supported "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.".
Why was Grutter v Bollinger overturned?
California be overturned as well. The verdict in Grutter v. Bollinger was reached because the Law School admission process involved other facets outside of simply grades. Because of this, there was no way to prove that the school accepted or preferred candidates based on their race or ethnicity.
Why was Barbara Grutter v. Bollinger filed?
Bollinger took place on April 1st of 2003. The case was filed because Barbara Grutter thought her rejection from the University of Michigan’s law school was unfair. She thought the school accepted minority candidates over her even if those individuals had worse grades than her. Similar to the case of Bakke v. California, Grutter claimed that the University of Michigan violated her 14th Amendment rights. Grutter v. Bollinger was heard in the United States Supreme Court. The case of Grutter v. Bollinger was decided on June 23rd of 2003.
Where did Barbara Grutter live?
Barbara Grutter was a woman living in Michigan. The case of Grutter v. Bollinger stems from Mrs. Grutter’s application the law school at the University of Michigan. Mrs. Grutter filed an injunction against the massive university in 2007.
Why was Barbara Grutter rejected from Michigan Law School?
Grutter argued that she was rejected because the Law School used race as a predominant factor, giving some minority applicants a greater chance ...
Does the 14th amendment protect underrepresented minority applicants?
Ultimately the Supreme Court upheld that an admissions process that favors underre presented minority applicants does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause so long as the process also takes into account other credentials on an individual basis for every applicant.
Why was the Grutter case important?
Grutter was an important victory for the supporters of affirmative action, especially in the area of higher education. The Court held that educational diversity constitutes a compelling state interest and that affirmative action programs, if properly tailored, are a constitutionally acceptable means of achieving the state's goals.
Why did the Bollinger case violate the Equal Protection Clause?
Bollinger, the Court held that the program violated the Equal Protection Clause because it used race as a decisive factor in a mechanical fashion.) ISSUE. Does The race-based affirmative action admissions policy at the University of Michigan Law School.
Which amendment is the University of Michigan's affirmative action policy?
Whether a race-based affirmative action admissions policy at the University of Michigan Law School violates the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.
Who relied on the amicus curiae briefs?
The Court seems to have relied heavily on the amicus curiae briefs by senior military leaders and by dozens of Fortune 500 corporations. "These interests, not usually advocates of liberal policies, spoke with powerful voices on the value of affirmative action programs, and O'Connor repeatedly quoted their positions in her opinion for the Court."
Does the University of Michigan have affirmative action?
No, the University of Michigan Law School affirmative action policy does not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and is unconstitutional.
Why is Gratz v. Bollinger important?
Bollinger helped the Court outline that affirmative action programs are only constitutional if they consider race as a factor in an individualized evaluation and the stated goal is to achieve class diversity. Affirmative action procedures are subject to strict scrutiny.
What did the plaintiffs claim against the University of Michigan?
After being denied entry into the University of Michigan’s undergraduate College of Literature, Science, and the Arts, Gratz and Hamacher, two Caucasians, filed suit against one of the University’s advisors in federal district court. Both plaintiffs claimed that the University’s current admission policy violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal ...
Why did two Caucasians challenge the University of Michigan admissions policy?
Two Caucasians challenged the University of Michigan’s admissions policy after being denied entry into the undergraduate program, claiming the procedure violated the 14th Amendment ’s Equal Protection clause.
How many points did the procedure add to the application of a minority candidate?
The Procedure automatically added 20 points onto the application of a minority candidate. The lower court granted an injunction, but the federal appeals court reversed and Gratz and Hamacher appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Which amendment gives automatic preference to minority students?
Rule of Law or Legal Principle Applied: A school’s admission procedure that, without additional individual consideration, gives automatic preference to minority students on the basis of race is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment .
Does racial preference violate the 14th amendment?
Whether racial preference in a University’s admission process violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment? Yes.
Is Bollinger's policy unconstitutional?
Bollinger claims the policy is useful for managing the volume of applications received, however, the program is capable of providing individualized consideration and although the volume of applicants may be a challenge, it does not mean an unconstitutional procedure should be put in place to alleviate the challenge.
Overview
Lower courts
In March 2001, U.S. District Court Judge Bernard A. Friedman ruled that the admissions policies were unconstitutional because they "clearly consider" race and are "practically indistinguishable from a quota system." Due to the significance of the case, the Court of Appeals agreed to hear the case en banc. In May 2002, in a closely divided 5–4 ruling, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, citing the Bakke decision and allowing the use of race to further the "comp…
Dispute
When the University of Michigan Law School denied admission to Barbara Grutter, a Michigan resident with a 3.8 GPA and 161 LSAT score, she filed this suit, alleging that respondents had discriminated against her on the basis of race in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as 42 U.S.C. § 1981; that she was rejected because the Law School uses race as a "predominant" factor, giving applicants belonging to certain minority grou…
Supreme Court's decision
The Court's majority ruling, authored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, held that the United States Constitution "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 held that the law school's interest in obtaining a "critical mass" of minority students was indeed a "tailored use". O'Connor noted that sometime in the future, perha…
Dissent
Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas, argued the Law School's admissions policy was an attempt to achieve an unconstitutional type of racial balancing. The Chief Justice attacked the Law School's asserted goal of reaching a "critical mass" of minority students, finding the absolute number of African-American, Hispanic, and Native American students varied markedly, which is inconsistent with the concept in that one would thi…
Timeline of federal courts' decisions
• The District Court found the Law School's use of race as an admissions factor unlawful.
• The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that Justice Powell's opinion in Bakke was binding precedent establishing diversity as a compelling state interest, and that the Law School's use of race was narrowly tailored because race was merely a "potential 'plus' factor" and because the Law School's program was virtually identical to the Harvard admissions program described approvingly by Ju…
Law adopted post case
Following the decision, petitions were circulated to change the Michigan State Constitution. The measure, called the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, or Proposal 2, passed in November 2006 and prohibited the use of race in the Law School admissions processes. In this respect, Proposal 2 is similar to California's Proposition 209 and Washington's Initiative 200, other initiatives that also banned the use of race in public university admissions decisions.
Further challenge
The Supreme Court granted certification to Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College two cases dealing with race-based admissions at Harvard College and The University of North Carolina in January 2022. Both cases seek to overturn Grutter and the use of race in admissions.
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 F…
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 ...
Later Developments
- 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 …
See Also
External Links