Gratz v. Bollinger

Supreme Court of United States
539 U.S. 244 (2003)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A university's undergraduate admissions policy that automatically distributes a significant, fixed point value to every applicant from an underrepresented minority group is not narrowly tailored to achieve an interest in educational diversity and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Facts:

Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, both Caucasian residents of Michigan, applied for undergraduate admission to the University of Michigan's College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LSA).
Gratz applied for admission in the fall of 1995, and Hamacher applied for admission in the fall of 1997.
Both petitioners were considered well-qualified by the University, but their applications were ultimately denied.
From 1998 onward, the University utilized a 150-point "selection index" to screen applicants for admission.
Under this system, the University automatically awarded 20 points on the index to any applicant belonging to an "underrepresented minority" group, which included African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans.
A score of 100 points on the 150-point scale generally guaranteed admission, making the 20-point racial preference a decisive factor for many applicants.

Procedural Posture:

Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher filed a class-action lawsuit against the University of Michigan in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
The complaint alleged that the University's use of race as a factor in its undergraduate admissions policy violated the Equal Protection Clause and federal statutes.
The District Court certified a class of non-minority individuals who applied for and were denied admission to the LSA.
On cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court found the admissions policy used from 1999 onward to be constitutional, while finding earlier versions of the policy unconstitutional.
Both parties appealed the District Court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari before the Sixth Circuit rendered a judgment.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions policy, which automatically awards 20 points to applicants from underrepresented minority groups, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or 42 U.S.C. § 1981?

Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist

Yes, the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions policy violates the Equal Protection Clause. To be constitutional, a race-conscious admissions program must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. While student body diversity can be a compelling interest, as affirmed in Grutter v. Bollinger, this policy is not narrowly tailored because it is not individualized. The automatic distribution of 20 points to every underrepresented minority applicant, solely on the basis of race, lacks the holistic, individual consideration that Justice Powell's controlling opinion in Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke required. The policy makes race a decisive factor for virtually every minimally qualified minority applicant, functioning as the equivalent of a quota, rather than as a mere 'plus' factor in a competitive review. The administrative convenience of such a mechanical system does not justify its departure from the constitutional requirement of individualized consideration.

Concurring - Justice O'Connor

Yes, the policy is unconstitutional. Unlike the law school's policy in Grutter, the undergraduate admissions office's use of a selection index does not provide for a meaningful, individualized review of applicants. The automatic 20-point bonus for all underrepresented minorities is a mechanized process that precludes admissions counselors from assessing the unique diversity contribution of each individual. While an Admissions Review Committee exists, it is an exception to the general rule and does not offset the non-individualized nature of the primary selection process, which stands in sharp contrast to the holistic review required by the Constitution.

Concurring - Justice Thomas

Yes, the policy is unconstitutional. A state's use of racial discrimination in higher education is categorically prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause. While this policy does not discriminate among different minority groups, it is unconstitutional because it relies on racial classifications and does not sufficiently allow for the consideration of nonracial distinctions among applicants.

Dissenting - Justice Stevens

The Court should not reach the merits of the case. Petitioners Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher lack Article III standing to seek forward-looking injunctive relief. At the time the suit was filed, both had already enrolled in other schools and faced no real or immediate threat of future injury from the freshman admissions policy they challenged. Hamacher's stated intent to apply as a transfer student is conjectural and involves a separate transfer policy not at issue here, making him an inadequate representative for a class challenging the freshman policy. Without a plaintiff who has a personal stake in the prospective relief sought, the case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Dissenting - Justice Souter

No, the admissions system should be upheld, though the Court should not have reached the merits due to lack of standing. The plan is not a quota system like the one struck down in Bakke; all applicants compete for all seats. The 20-point bonus for race is not functionally different from points awarded for other factors like athletic ability or socioeconomic disadvantage. The policy considers many elements of diversity, and the assignment of a specific point value is a transparent way of implementing the permissible 'plus' factor system described in Bakke. The Court is unfairly punishing the University for its candor in quantifying the weight it gives to race.

Dissenting - Justice Ginsburg

No, the policy is constitutional. In light of the nation's history, the Constitution permits a distinction between policies of exclusion and policies of inclusion designed to remedy the lingering effects of past discrimination. Where race is used to achieve equality, strict proscription is not appropriate. The University's policy is a forthright and fully disclosed affirmative action program aimed at including historically disadvantaged groups. Such a candid approach is preferable to achieving the same diversity goals through 'winks, nods, and disguises' that hide the consideration of race.

Analysis:

This decision, handed down the same day as Grutter v. Bollinger, established a crucial boundary for affirmative action policies in higher education. While Grutter affirmed that race could be a 'plus' factor in a holistic, individualized review, Gratz held that mechanical, points-based systems that automatically assign value based on race are unconstitutional. The ruling effectively outlawed admissions programs that resemble quotas or use race as a decisive, predetermined factor. This forces universities wishing to consider race to adopt more complex, administratively intensive, and individualized review processes, ensuring that each applicant's potential contribution to diversity is assessed on its own merits.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"