Case: Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Brown

3:10-cv-00641 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Filed Date: Feb. 16, 2010

Closed Date: May 11, 2012

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On February 16, 2010 several students and pro-affirmative action groups filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California challenging Proposition 209. The Plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, sought declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that Proposition 209 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim that the harsh restrictions that Proposition…

On February 16, 2010 several students and pro-affirmative action groups filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California challenging Proposition 209. The Plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, sought declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that Proposition 209 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim that the harsh restrictions that Proposition 209 puts on affirmative action denies the Plaintiffs the chance for an equal and integrated education.

On December 8, 2010, the Court (Judge Samuel Conti) granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, holding that Proposition 209 did not classify individuals based on race, but rather banned it, and thus did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Schwarzenegger, 2010 WL 5094278 (N.D. Cal. December 8, 2010). The Plaintiffs then appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On April 2, 2012, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Judge Silverman) affirmed the District Court, noting that just because Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 325 (2003) allowed an affirmative action program doesn't mean that affirmative action programs may not be banned. Rehearing en banc was denied on May 11, 2012.

It does not appear the Plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari.

The case appears to be closed.

Summary Authors

Joshua Arocho (7/19/2012)

Virginia Weeks (11/8/2017)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4684591/parties/coalition-to-defend-affirmative-action-v-schwarzenegger/


Judge(s)

Conti, Samuel (California)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Cruz, Ronald T. (California)

Driver, Shanta (Michigan)

Attorney for Defendant

Friedland, Michelle (California)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

Browne, Sharon L. (California)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

3:10-cv-00641

Docket [PACER]

Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Schwarzenegger

Aug. 2, 2012

Aug. 2, 2012

Docket
1

3:10-cv-00641

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Class Action)

Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Schwarzenegger

Feb. 16, 2010

Feb. 16, 2010

Complaint
42

3:10-cv-00641

Order re: Motion to Intervene and Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Schwarzenegger

Aug. 25, 2010

Aug. 25, 2010

Order/Opinion

2010 WL 3340577

53

3:10-cv-00641

Order Granting Motion to Dismiss

Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Schwarzenegger

Dec. 8, 2010

Dec. 8, 2010

Order/Opinion

2010 WL 5094278

3:10-cv-00641

11-15100

Opinion (Ninth Circuit)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

April 2, 2012

April 2, 2012

Order/Opinion

674 F.3d 1128

65

3:10-cv-00641

11-15100

Order

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

May 11, 2012

May 11, 2012

Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4684591/coalition-to-defend-affirmative-action-v-schwarzenegger/

Last updated Dec. 18, 2024, 6:26 p.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Education

Special Collection(s):

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Feb. 16, 2010

Closing Date: May 11, 2012

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

All black, Latina/a and Native American applicants to and students at any school or campus of the University of California; All black, Latina/o, and Native Amctican and other residents who want to lobby for changes in the admission and other policies of the defendant universities in order to secure the admission of more black, Latina/o and Native American applicants to the University of California.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Unknown

Defendants

Regents of the University of California, State

President of the University of California, State

Governor of California, State

Defendant Type(s):

College/University

Facility Type(s):

Government-run

Case Details

Constitutional Clause(s):

Equal Protection

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Nature of Relief:

None

Source of Relief:

None

Issues

Discrimination Basis:

National origin discrimination

Race discrimination

Affected Race(s):

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Black

Affected Sex/Gender(s):

Female

Male