Grutter v. Bollinger
| Grutter v. Bollinger | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued April 1, 2003 Decided June 23, 2003 |
|
| Full case name | Barbara Grutter, Petitioner v. Lee Bollinger, et al. |
| Citations | 539 U.S. 306 (more)
123 S.Ct. 2325, 156 L.Ed.2d 304, 71 USLW 4498, 91 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1761, 84 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 41,415, 177 Ed. Law Rep. 801, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5378, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6800, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 367
|
| Prior history | Held for Plaintiff and enjoined use of current admissions policy, 137 F. Supp. 2d 821 (E.D. Mich. 2001); reversed, 288 F.3d 732 (6th Cir. 2002) (en banc); certiorari granted 537 U.S. 1043 (2002) |
| Subsequent history | Rehearing denied, 539 U.S. 982 (2003) |
| Holding | |
| University of Michigan Law School admissions program that gave special consideration for being a certain racial minority did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | O'Connor, joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer |
| Concurrence | Ginsburg, joined by Breyer |
| Concur/dissent | Scalia, joined by Thomas |
| Concur/dissent | Thomas, joined by Scalia |
| Dissent | Rehnquist, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas |
| Dissent | Kennedy |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV | |
Grutter v. 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, ruled that the University of Michigan Law School had a compelling interest in promoting class diversity. The court held that a race-conscious admissions process that may favor "underrepresented minority groups," but that also took into account many other factors evaluated on an individual basis for every applicant, did not amount to a quota system that would have been unconstitutional under Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.
Justices Ginsburg and Breyer concurred in judgment, but stated that they did not subscribe to the Court's belief that the affirmative measures in question would be unnecessary in 25 years.
Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas, dissented, arguing that the University's "plus" system was, in fact, a thinly veiled and unconstitutional quota system. Chief Justice Rehnquist cited the fact that the percentage of African American applicants closely mirrored the percentage of African American applicants that were accepted.
...
Wikipedia