Fact Sheet

Current Status—Upcoming Events

Both cases are on appeal in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, where they are being reviewed on an expedited basis. Oral arguments before the full court (en banc) were held December 6, 2001. We are now awaiting a ruling from the court.

Below is a summary of the basic facts in the two affirmative action lawsuits against the University of Michigan.

The Parties

There are two lawsuits which were originally filed in the federal court for the Eastern District of Michigan:

Gratz v. Bollinger et. al was filed on October 13, 1997 and was assigned to Judge Patrick Duggan. It challenges the University's use of race in its admission process to its largest undergraduate college, the College of Literature, Science & the Arts. It is brought by Jennifer Gratz, an unsuccessful applicant for the 1995 Fall Term, and Patrick Hamacher, an unsuccessful applicant for the 1997 Fall Term.

Grutter v. Bollinger, et. al was filed on December 3, 1997 and was assigned to Judge Bernard Friedman. It challenges the University's use of race in its admissions process at the Law School and is brought by Barbara Grutter, an unsuccessful applicant for the 1997 Fall entering class.

The plaintiffs are suing the University, a public university founded in 1817, and specific University officials in their individual and official capacities.

Both cases have been certified as class actions for purposes of reviewing the policies at issue.

The University's lead counsel is John Payton, a noted civil rights attorney of the Washington D.C. law firm of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering. Local counsel for the University is Butzel Long, of Detroit.

In both cases, the Center for Individual Rights ("CIR") is representing the plaintiffs with Minneapolis law firm of Maslon, Edelman, Borman & Brand serving as lead counsel. CIR is a law firm located in Washington, D.C. which has been conducting a campaign of lawsuits to dismantle affirmative action. They represented Cheryl Hopwood in Texas; are currently suing the University of Washington Law School and several other institutions over affirmative action programs.

In both cases, groups of students and citizens have intervened to defend the University's policy. Although their intervention was initially denied by the district courts, in August 1999 the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit allowed the intervention and made the student and citizen groups full parties in the case.

Many organizations and entities have filed "friend of the Court" briefs in the Court of Appeals. The briefs filed in support of the University's position include briefs by: General Motors Corporation; a group of 32 Fortune 500 corporations including Microsoft, Intel, Pfizer and others; the American Bar Association, the American Council on Education (and numerous other higher education organizations); the UAW, the Attorney General of Michigan; and the National Organization for Women (NOW) Legal Defense Fund. The briefs filed in support of the plaintiff's position include briefs by the National Association of Scholars, the Center for Equal Opportunity and the Pacific Legal Foundation.

The Dispute

The plaintiffs who are challenging the University's affirmative action policy take the position that the University's admissions practices unlawfully discriminate against them, because the University takes race and ethnicity into account as a "plus" factor among many factors in its admissions process. In general, they seek injunctive relief, and monetary damages.

The University's position is that the Constitution and civil rights statutes, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the 1978 Bakke decision, permit it to take race and ethnicity into account in its admissions program in order to achieve the educational benefits of a diverse student body. A racially diverse student body produces significant educational benefits because of the current state of segregation and separation along racial lines in America. These benefits constitute a "compelling governmental interest" which justifies the consideration of race and ethnicity in the University's admissions system.

The intervenors defend the University's policy on the basis that it is needed to remedy past and/or present discrimination against minorities.

Trial Court Rulings

A trial on the specifics of the Law School admissions process was held in early 2001. On March 27th, Judge Friedman issued a decision finding that the educational benefits of diversity were not a compelling interest and that the specifics of the Law School's policy were not "narrowly tailored" to that interest. He also found that the intervenors' defense was essentially based on remedying societal discrimination which is impermissible. He issued an order that the Law School cease considering race in its admissions process. On April 5th, the Court of Appeals issued a stay of the District Court order while the appeal proceeds.

On December 13, 2000, Judge Duggan ruled without a trial and granted summary judgment in the University's favor in the Gratz case. He found that the pursuit of the educational benefits of diversity is a compelling governmental interest, and that the University's current admissions policy is fully constitutional. In a separate opinion, Duggan rejected the intervenors' alternative defense of the policy. CIR has petitioned to appeal the judgment about the current admissions process and the University has petitioned to cross-appeal for the years 1995-1998, which Judge Duggan found unconstitutional.

Revised: January 9, 2002.