Grutter v. Bollinger
188 F.3d 394 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), prospective intervenors have a right to intervene in a lawsuit when they can demonstrate a substantial legal interest that may be impaired by the litigation and that the existing parties may not adequately represent, with the burden for showing inadequacy being minimal.
Facts:
- The University of Michigan's College of Literature, Arts and Science used an applicant's race as a factor in its undergraduate admissions process.
- Jennifer Gratz and another white applicant were denied admission to the University of Michigan's undergraduate college.
- The University of Michigan Law School also utilized a race-conscious admissions policy.
- Barbara Grutter, a white applicant, was denied admission to the University of Michigan Law School.
- A group of African-American and Latino/a prospective and current students, along with several pro-affirmative action coalitions, sought to defend the university's admissions policies.
- These individuals and groups believed that eliminating the university's race-conscious admissions policies would threaten their own access and the access of other qualified minority students to higher education.
Procedural Posture:
- Jennifer Gratz and others sued the University of Michigan in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, challenging the constitutionality of the undergraduate admissions policy.
- Barbara Grutter filed a separate lawsuit in the same district court against the University of Michigan Law School, challenging its admissions policy.
- In both cases, groups of students and pro-affirmative action coalitions filed motions to intervene as defendants.
- The district court in the Gratz case denied the motion for intervention.
- The district court in the Grutter case also denied the motion for intervention.
- The proposed intervenors from both cases appealed the denials to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which consolidated the cases for its opinion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do prospective student intervenors, who have an interest in preserving a university's race-conscious admissions policy, meet the requirements for intervention as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) in a lawsuit challenging that policy?
Opinions:
Majority - Daughtrey, J.
Yes. The prospective student intervenors meet the requirements for intervention as of right because they have a substantial interest in the admissions policies, the disposition of the case could impair that interest, and the university may not adequately represent their unique perspectives. The court applies a four-part test for intervention as of right: (1) timeliness, (2) substantial legal interest, (3) potential impairment of that interest, and (4) inadequate representation by existing parties. Timeliness was not contested. The court found the students' interest in gaining admission to be a 'direct and substantial' legal interest, consistent with the circuit's 'expansive notion' of what qualifies. The potential for a decline in minority enrollment if the plaintiffs prevailed was sufficient to meet the 'minimal' burden of showing impairment. Finally, the court held that the intervenors met the 'minimal' burden of showing potential inadequate representation by arguing that the University, due to institutional pressures, was unlikely to present certain defenses, such as evidence of its own past discrimination, which the intervenors wished to raise.
Dissenting - Stafford, D.J.
No. The prospective intervenors have not established their right to intervene because they failed to satisfy their burden of showing that the University of Michigan will inadequately represent their interests. The dissent argues that there is no evidence in the record to suggest the university will not zealously defend its own admissions policies or will fail to make all relevant arguments. The dissent characterizes the intervenors' concerns as 'subjective fears' and concludes that the court should not substitute its judgment for that of the trial judges who found no basis for intervention.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies an expansive interpretation of the requirements for intervention as of right under Rule 24(a) within the Sixth Circuit, particularly in civil rights litigation. By setting a very low bar for demonstrating both a 'substantial interest' and 'inadequate representation,' the court makes it easier for parties who are beneficiaries of a challenged government policy to join the litigation as defendants. The ruling establishes that the mere potential for an institutional defendant, like a university, to have different strategic interests or to be unwilling to raise certain arguments (like its own past misconduct) is sufficient to justify intervention by affected third parties. This precedent empowers interest groups and individuals to ensure their unique perspectives are presented in cases that could directly impact their rights and opportunities.
Unlock the full brief for Grutter v. Bollinger