Grutter v. Bollinger

Grutterdefending affirmative actionGrutter 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.wikipedia
101 Related Articles

Affirmative action in the United States

affirmative actionaffirmativeminority quotas
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.
However, Texas's ban with Hopwood v. Texas was reversed in 2003 by Grutter v. Bollinger, leaving eight states that currently ban the policy.

List of landmark court decisions in the United States

landmarklandmark decisionlandmark case
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.

Sandra Day O'Connor

Justice O'ConnorSandra Day O’ConnorO'Connor
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."
Her majority opinions in landmark cases include Grutter v. Bollinger and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.

Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke

Regents of the University of California v. BakkeAllan BakkeBakke
The decision largely upheld the Court's decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), which allowed race to be a consideration in admissions policy but held racial quotas to be unconstitutional.
Questions about whether the Bakke case was merely a plurality opinion or binding precedent were answered in 2003 when the court upheld Powell's position in a majority opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

GinsburgJustice GinsburgJustice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer concurred in the judgment, but did not subscribe to the belief that the affirmative measures in question would be unnecessary in 25 years.
In her concurring opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), a decision upholding Michigan Law School's affirmative action admissions policy, Ginsburg noted there was accord between the notion that affirmative action admissions policies would have an end point and agrees with international treaties designed to combat racial and gender based discrimination.

Affirmative action

positive discriminationemployment equityaffirmative-action
It implied that affirmative action should not be allowed permanent status and that eventually a "colorblind" policy should be implemented.
In 2003, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Grutter v. Bollinger, held that the University of Michigan Law School could consider race as a plus-factor when evaluating applicants holistically and maintained the prohibition on the use of quotas.

University of Michigan

MichiganUniversity of Michigan, Ann ArborUniversity of Michigan at Ann Arbor
Lee Bollinger (then-President of the University of Michigan), was the named defendant of this case.
In 2003, two lawsuits involving U-M's affirmative action admissions policy reached the U.S. Supreme Court (Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger).

Gratz v. Bollinger

GratzGratz v BollingerJennifer Gratz
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.
Like Grutter, the case was heard in District Court, appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and asked to be heard before the Supreme Court.

Equal Protection Clause

equal protectionequal protection of the lawsEqual Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
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.
But the most famous cases have dealt with affirmative action as practiced by public universities: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), and two companion cases decided by the Supreme Court in 2003, Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger.

Lee Bollinger

Lee C. BollingerBollinger
Lee Bollinger (then-President of the University of Michigan), was the named defendant of this case.
In 2003, while serving as president of the University of Michigan, Bollinger made headlines as the named defendant in the Supreme Court cases Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Fourteenth Amendment14th AmendmentFourteenth
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.
In Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), the Court considered two race-conscious admissions systems at the University of Michigan.

Fisher v. University of Texas (2013)

Fisher v. University of TexasFisher v. University of Texas'' (2013)Abigail Fisher
The Supreme Court decided a challenge to the University of Texas at Austin's admission policy, Fisher v. University of Texas, in June 2013.
The Supreme Court voided the lower appellate court's ruling in favor of the University and remanded the case, holding that the lower court had not applied the standard of strict scrutiny, articulated in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), to its admissions program.

Affirmative action at the University of Michigan

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) is a supreme court case in which The University of Michigan Law School denied entrance to Barbara Grutter, who was an excellent student with a 3.8 GPA and a 161 LSAT score.

Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action

6–2 decisionSchuette v. BAMN
The Court ultimately upheld MCRI in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action.
Two cases in 2003 involving the University of Michigan found that the university's policy of granting extra points to minorities for undergraduate admissions was unconstitutional (Gratz v. Bollinger) but that a program which gave holistic consideration for being a certain racial minority, though not an automatic boost, in admissions to the law school was constitutional (Grutter v. Bollinger).

1996 California Proposition 209

Proposition 209California Proposition 209California Civil Rights Initiative
Another criticism raised by Justice Thomas compared Michigan Law to the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, where California's Proposition 209 had barred Berkeley Law from "granting preferential treatment on the basis of race in the operation of public education."

Michigan Civil Rights Initiative

Proposal 22006 Proposal 2amendment
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.

Lists of United States Supreme Court cases

List of United States Supreme Court caseslist of cases decidedcase
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.

Supreme Court of the United States

United States Supreme CourtU.S. Supreme CourtSupreme Court
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.

College admissions in the United States

college admissionsadmissionadmissions
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.

Race and ethnicity in the United States

raceRace in the United Statesancestry
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.

University of Michigan Law School

University of Michigan School of LawUniversity of MichiganMichigan Law School
The case arose after a prospective student to the University of Michigan Law School alleged that she had been denied admission because the school gave certain minority groups a significantly greater chance of admission.

Stephen Breyer

BreyerJustice BreyerStephen G. Breyer
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer concurred in the judgment, but did not subscribe to the belief that the affirmative measures in question would be unnecessary in 25 years.

William Rehnquist

William H. RehnquistRehnquistChief Justice Rehnquist
In a dissent joined by three other justices, Chief Justice William Rehnquist argued that the university's admissions system was, in fact, a thinly veiled and unconstitutional quota system.

Racial quota

quotaracial quotasquotas
The decision largely upheld the Court's decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), which allowed race to be a consideration in admissions policy but held racial quotas to be unconstitutional.