CASE OVERVIEW
> > Want more information and the full text of the documents? Please visit the legal overview section of the Admissions Lawsuits website.
Summary of Cases
In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled on two cases involving admissions and affirmative action at the University of Michigan (U-M). Grutter v. Bollinger et al. concerned a woman who claimed she was denied admission to the U-M Law School because she was white; the plaintiffs in Gratz et al. v. Bollinger et al. made a similar charge against the University’s College of Literature, Science, and the Arts.
The plaintiffs in both cases believed that the University’s evaluation of applicants placed too much emphasis on racial identity, and not enough on a competitive, objective evaluation of past achievements. They alleged that the U-M’s admissions policies violated the civil rights of white applicants by giving an unfair advantage to minority applicants. While the stated goal of the admissions policies might be to achieve some level of diversity, the plaintiffs argued that the policies did not serve a “compelling interest.” According to the plaintiffs, any consideration of race violated the U.S. Constitution no matter to whom the benefits fell.
U-M based its defense of affirmative action in admissions on the premise that diversity enriches the lives of all students and, ultimately, society as a whole. The University argued that their policies were moderate, fair, and structured to achieve the educational benefits of diversity for the entire student body without jeopardizing academic standards or creating a disadvantage for non-minority applicants.
While the Supreme Court upheld the U-M admissions policy in the law school case (Grutter) and rejected the admissions policy in the undergraduate case (Gratz), both rulings reaffirmed the constitutionality of using race as one factor in the admissions process.
These landmark cases, decided in the last years of the Rehnquist era, are indicative of the crucial role played by former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who both authored the Court’s opinion in Grutter upholding the law school admissions policy and was a member of the Court majority in Gratz. Grutter and Gratz are important and fascinating decisions that are sure to be discussed for years to come.
the argument
One of the top law schools in the nation, the U-M Law School followed an admissions policy that sought to achieve student body diversity in a manner consistent with Justice Powell’s opinion in the 1978 case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. In Bakke, Justice Powell explained that achieving the educational benefits of diversity was a compelling interest that justified the consideration of race as a “plus factor” in university admissions.
When the Law School denied admission to petitioner Barbara Grutter, a white Michigan resident with a 3.8 GPA and 161 LSAT score, she filed suit, alleging that she had been discriminated against on the basis of race and that the Law School used race as a “predominant” factor, giving applicants belonging to certain minority groups a significantly greater chance of admission than students with similar credentials from purportedly disfavored racial groups.
The University’s position was that the U.S. Constitution and federal civil rights statutes, as interpreted in Bakke, permitted it to take race and ethnicity into account in its admissions policies as a means to achieve the educational benefits of a student body that is both diverse and academically excellent. These educational benefits constituted a “compelling governmental interest,” which justified the narrowly tailored consideration of race and ethnicity in the Law School’s admissions system.
The district court found the Law School’s use of race as an admissions factor unlawful. The Sixth Circuit reversed that ruling, 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.”
the Supreme Court’s decision
The Supreme Court found for the University of Michigan, holding that the Equal Protection Clause did not prohibit the Law School’s use of race in its admissions process to further the compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.
Gratz v. Bollinger et al.
THE UNDERGRADUATE ADMISSIONS CASE
the argument
Petitioners Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, both white Michigan residents, brought suit against the University after being denied admission to the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LSA) for Fall Term 1995 and Fall Term 1997, respectively.
The petitioners alleged that U-M’s use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions—specifically, the award of 20 points to those applicants who were considered “underrepresented minorities”—violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Gratz and Hamacher sought damages; an acknowledgment that their rights to nondiscriminatory treatment were violated; an injunction prohibiting LSA from continuing to discriminate on the basis of race; and an order requiring the LSA to offer Hamacher admission as a transfer student.
The district court found that the undergraduate admissions policies in place from 1995 through 1998 used race in an unlawful manner, but upheld the undergraduate admissions policy first used in 1999. Under that policy, the University used a 150-point scale that looked at many factors in making admissions decisions, including test scores and grades, as well as “underrepresented minority” status, socioeconomic disadvantage, and alumni connections to the University.
the Supreme Court’s decision
The Court agreed with U-M that diversity was a compelling interest that could support the consideration of race in university admissions, but concluded that the manner in which the University considered the race of applicants in its undergraduate admissions guidelines violated the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court therefore reversed the district court’s decision upholding the LSA admissions policy.
| 
