Hopwood v. State of Texas
236 F.3d 256, 2000 WL 1868233, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 33523 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a reverse discrimination case, once a plaintiff demonstrates that an unconstitutional racial preference was a motivating factor in an adverse decision, the burden shifts to the defendant institution to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the same decision would have been reached under a constitutional, race-blind system. Additionally, an injunction prohibiting all consideration of race in university admissions is overbroad if it conflicts with existing Supreme Court precedent allowing for constitutionally permissible race-conscious remedial measures.
Facts:
- In 1992, the University of Texas School of Law (Law School) received 4,494 applications for approximately 500 available seats.
- The Law School categorized applications into 'presumptive admit,' 'discretionary zone,' and 'presumptive deny' based on Texas Index (TI) scores, which were calculated using an applicant’s undergraduate GPA and LSAT score.
- The TI scores required for placement into these categories were lower for African American and Mexican American applicants than for non-minority applicants.
- Professor Stanley Johanson, the admissions committee chair, could review presumptive admit files and downgrade those with questionable GPAs to the discretionary zone.
- Cheryl J. Hopwood, Douglas Carvell, Kenneth Elliott, and David Rogers, non-minority applicants, applied for admission to the Law School in 1992 and were denied.
- Hopwood, despite a TI score of 199, was downgraded to the discretionary zone by Professor Johanson due to concerns about her GPA being inflated by her noncompetitive community college and undergraduate university.
- Hopwood received one vote for admission from Assistant Dean Laquita Hamilton (based on non-academic diversity factors) and was placed on the waiting list, but ultimately denied admission.
- Carvell (TI 197), Elliott (TI 197), and Rogers (TI 197) were all placed in the discretionary zone; Carvell received one vote from a student member and was wait-listed, while Elliott and Rogers received no votes and were denied admission.
Procedural Posture:
- Cheryl J. Hopwood, Douglas Carvell, Kenneth Elliott, and David Rogers (Plaintiffs) sued The University of Texas at Austin, the University of Texas School of Law, and the State of Texas, its Board of Regents, and officials (Defendants/Texas) alleging reverse racial discrimination for denial of admission to the Law School.
- The district court (Hopwood A, 861 F. Supp. 551 (W.D. Tex 1994)) held that the Plaintiffs failed to establish they would have been offered admission under a constitutional admissions system and denied their request for attorneys' fees.
- The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (Hopwood I, 21 F.3d 603 (5th Cir. 1994)) affirmed the district court’s denial of intervention sought by several minority rights advocacy organizations.
- The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (Hopwood II, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir.)) reversed Hopwood A's causation finding, holding that under the Mt. Healthy burden-shifting scheme, the Law School must bear the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that, even under a race-blind system, the Plaintiffs would not have been admitted; it also reversed the denial of attorneys' fees and remanded with instructions to award reasonable fees.
- The Supreme Court denied certiorari for Hopwood II (518 U.S. 1033 (1996)).
- On remand, the district court (Hopwood B, 999 F. Supp. 872 (W.D. Tex 1998)) conducted a four-day bench trial and found that the Law School had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that none of the Plaintiffs would have been admitted under a race-blind system.
- In Hopwood B, the district court also made conditional damages findings (nominal damages for all, specific economic and mental anguish damages for some, to be used only if its causation findings were reversed on appeal).
- The district court in Hopwood B entered a permanent injunction prohibiting any consideration of race whatsoever in the Law School’s admissions process.
- The district court in Hopwood B entertained supplemental applications for attorneys’ fees and made final decisions, reducing the amounts requested by Plaintiffs' counsel.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Did the district court clearly err in finding that the Plaintiffs would not have been offered admission to the University of Texas School of Law in 1992 under a constitutionally valid, race-blind admissions program? 2. Did the district court abuse its discretion by issuing a permanent injunction prohibiting any consideration of race whatsoever in the Law School’s admissions process? 3. Did the district court abuse its discretion in its rulings on attorneys' fees?
Opinions:
Majority - Wiener, Circuit Judge
No, the district court did not clearly err in finding that the Plaintiffs would not have been offered admission to the Law School in 1992 under a constitutionally valid, race-blind admissions program. The Law School, through expert testimony from Professor Olin Guy Wellborn, presented substantial evidence demonstrating that, even under a hypothetical race-blind admissions system, none of the plaintiffs would have been admitted. Professor Wellborn's analysis, which applied identical race-blind standards to all candidates and identified the plaintiffs' significant application weaknesses (e.g., lower LSAT scores, less rigorous academic backgrounds, poor letters of recommendation), was found to be sound. The appellate court conducted its own de novo review of the record, including application files, and affirmed the district court's meticulous and correct factual findings, concluding that the Law School successfully carried its burden under the Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle framework.
Majority - Wiener, Circuit Judge
Yes, the district court abused its discretion by issuing a permanent injunction prohibiting any consideration of race whatsoever in the Law School’s admissions process. First, the district court failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) by not conducting an evidentiary hearing or providing specific findings of fact and conclusions of law to justify the necessity and parameters of the injunction. Second, the injunction on its face impermissibly conflicted with the Supreme Court's holding in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, which allows for race to be considered in some circumstances, specifically for remedying effects of previous discrimination by the institution itself. The injunction was overbroad because Hopwood II itself only barred the University from using race for specific remedial purposes (e.g., broad societal discrimination or discrimination by other components of the state education system), not for all remedial purposes. The court reversed and remanded the injunction issue, instructing that any future injunction must be supported by findings and not exceed the scope of Hopwood II or Bakke.
Majority - Wiener, Circuit Judge
No, the district court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings on attorneys' fees. The court affirmed the district court's decision, acknowledging that the Plaintiffs were "prevailing parties" under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) because they achieved the "principal goal of the lawsuit"—the dismantling of racial preferences in public higher education in Texas—even though they secured only nominal damages for themselves. The district court's various reductions (e.g., 25% for duplicative work and lack of billing judgment, 15% for lack of individual monetary or injunctive relief, reduction of hourly rates to prevailing local market rates, and denial of fees for media relations and opposing intervention) were within its broad discretion. The court noted that the legal issues, while politically significant, were "neither novel nor extraordinarily difficult" and did not warrant higher fees for out-of-town counsel, upholding the principle that fee awards should reflect local market rates and reasonable billing judgment. The court also declined Texas's request to reconsider the merits of Hopwood II under the law of the case doctrine, finding Hopwood II was not "dead wrong" in its interpretation of fragmented Supreme Court precedent on diversity and remedial racial preferences.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the rigorous burden on defendant institutions in reverse discrimination claims under the Mt. Healthy framework, requiring them to definitively prove that discriminatory practices did not alter an applicant's outcome. It also provides crucial guidance on the limits of judicial power in issuing injunctive relief in such cases, emphasizing that injunctions must be narrowly tailored, supported by specific findings, and consistent with controlling Supreme Court precedent like Bakke. The decision underscores that while federal courts can strike down unconstitutional affirmative action, they cannot broadly prohibit all race-conscious measures that might be permissible under the Constitution. Furthermore, the ruling highlights the broad discretion afforded to trial courts in determining reasonable attorneys' fees in civil rights litigation, even when individual plaintiffs achieve only nominal damages, recognizing the broader societal impact of such cases.
