Case: Gratz v. Bollinger

On Oct. 14, 1997, two applicants who had been denied admission to the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor brought this class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the university. The plaintiffs, represented by public interest counsel, claimed that the university's admissions policy treated race as a predominant factor in granting admission, and that they, as white applicants, had been discriminated against in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

On Dec. 23, 1998, the court (Judge Patrick J. Duggan) certified the class comprising "[t]hose individuals who applied for and were not granted admission to the College of Literature, Science & the Arts of the University of Michigan for all academic years from 1995 forward and who are members of those racial or ethnic groups, including Caucasian, that defendants treat less favorably on the basis of race in considering their application for admission."

On Dec. 13, 2000, Judge Duggan granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment with respect to the university's admissions policy during the years 1995-1998---during which time a specific number of admissions were reserved for minority applicants---and declared those policies unconstitutional. But the court also granted defendants' motion for summary judgment with regard to the admissions programs for the years 1999-2000---during which time applicants were graded on a 150-point scale, and underrepresented minorities automatically received 20 points based on their membership to one of the identified minority categories.

Judge Duggan determined that "the educational benefits flowing from a racially and ethnically diverse student body are a sufficiently compelling interest to survive strict scrutiny," and the point system in place at the time of the decision was narrowly tailored to achieve that purpose, though the policies in place from '95-'98 were not. The court denied the plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief, and granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity.

The Dec. 13, 2000, Order and Opinion limited itself to the question of whether the university's admissions policies passed constitutional muster as narrowly tailored means of achieving diversity. In a Feb. 26, 2001 opinion, Judge Duggan ruled on whether the policies passed constitutional muster as a narrowly tailored means of remedying past and current discrimination by the university. 135 F. Supp. 2d 790. The court determined that the school's policies could not be justified as measures to remedy either the current effects of past discrimination, or the discriminatory impact of the university's other admissions criteria, and so denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment .

Both parties appealed the court's decision, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit heard the case en banc on the same day as Grutter v. Bollinger. The 6th Circuit later issued an opinion in Grutter which upheld the University of Michigan Law School's admissions policy. The petitioner in that case also sought a writ of certiorari for this case, even though the Court of Appeals had not yet rendered a judgment in it, so that the Supreme Court could address the broader context of race in university admissions policies at one time. The Court granted certiorari.

On June 23, 2003, the Court (majority opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist) held that the university's point system is not narrowly tailored to achieve the school's asserted interest in diversity. 539 U.S. 244. The policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The school's policy failed to provide for the individualized consideration of each applicant that Bakke required. Moreover, the fact that 20 points automatically accrued to underrepresented minorities turned race into a decisive factor in the admissions process.

On remand, the parties settled all remaining claims, and on Jan. 31, 2007, Judge Duggan dismissed the case with prejudice.