Grutter v. Bollinger
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
Opinion: O'Connor (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)
Concurring: Ginsburg (Breyer)
Concurring/Dissenting: Scalia, Thomas
Dissenting: Rehnquist (Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas), Thomas

Basic Info:
-Michigan Law School case- implementation of the "critical mass"/Harvard plan
-Grutter argued that on grounds of race discrimination in violation of EPC of the 14th Amd, and of title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
-Dissents are on the "Right"

O'Connor: Strict scrutiny is approtpriate and the achievement of educational benefit of a diverse student body is compelling.  This use of race is sufficiently narrowly tailored. "Color blindness" language. Michigan policy is ok.
Thomas: There is no racial line drawing- it is always suspicious.  No compelling interest in high LSAT scores.

Significance: upholds Powell decision in Bakke.

O'Connor: "Race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time.  The Court takes the Law School at its word that it would like nothing better than to find a race-neutral admissions formula and will terminate its use of racial preferences as soon as practiable.  The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today."

O'Connor: "To be narrowly tailored, a race-conscious admissions program cannot use a quota system---it cannot 'insulate each category of applications with certain desired qualifications from competition with all other applicants."

Rehnquist: "Stripped of its "critical mass" veil, the law school's program is revealed as a naked effort to achieve racial balancing"

  • No labels