From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gratz v. Bollinger
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 1, 2003 Decided June 23, 2003
Full case name: Jennifer Gratz and Theodore Hammacher v. Lee Bollinger, et al. Citations: 539 U.S. 244; 123 S. Ct. 2411; 156 L. Ed. 2d 257; 2003 U.S. LEXIS 4801; 71 U.S.L.W. 4480; 91 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1803; 84 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P41,416; 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5362; 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 387 Prior history: Summary judgment granted in part to plaintiffs, 122 F. Supp. 2d 811 (E.D. Mich. 2000); Summary judgment granted to plaintiffs, 135 F. Supp. 2d 790 (E.D. Mich. 2001) Subsequent history: On remand, 80 Fed. Appx. 417 (6th Cir. 2003)
Holding
A state university's admission policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because its ranking system gave an automatic point increase to all racial minorities rather than making individual determinations. Eastern District of Michigan affirmed in part, reversed and remanded.
Court membership
Chief Justice: William Rehnquist Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
Majority by: Rehnquist Joined by: O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas Concurrence by: O'Connor Joined by: Breyer (in part) Concurrence by: Thomas Concurrence by: Breyer Dissent by: Stevens Joined by: Souter Dissent by: Souter Joined by: Ginsburg (in part) Dissent by: Ginsburg Joined by: Souter, Breyer (in part)
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV

Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003)^[1], was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the University of Michigan undergraduate affirmative action admissions policy. In a 6–3 decision announced on June 23, 2003, the Supreme Court ruled the university's point system was too mechanistic and therefore unconstitutional.

Contents 1 Facts 2 Issues of Standing 3 Decision of the Court 4 See also 5 External links

The University of Michigan used a 150-point scale to rank applicants, with 100 points needed to guarantee admission. The University gave "underrepresented" ethnic, including African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans, an automatic 20-point bonus on this scale.

The petitioners, Jennifer Gratz and Theodore Hammacher, both white residents of Michigan, applied for admission to the University of Michigan's College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LSA). Gratz applied for admission in the fall of 1995 and Hamacher in the fall of 1997. Both were subsequently denied admission to the university. In October 1997, Gratz and Hammacher filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the University of Michigan, the LSA, James Duderstadt, and Lee Bollinger. Duderstadt was president of the university while Gratz's application was under consideration, and Bollinger while Hammacher's was under consideration. Their class-action lawsuit alleged "violations and threatened violations of the rights of the plaintiffs and the class they represent to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment... and for racial discrimination."

Like Grutter, the case was heard in District Court, appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and asked to be heard before the Supreme Court.

It has been argued by some that Jennifer Gratz lacked standing to bring this action. Gratz applied in 1995, three years before the University of Michigan adopted its points system. Gratz could not claim injury as a result of the points system, and thus, under traditional legal rules, Gratz lacked standing. Ms. Gratz chose not to attend the University of Michigan by declining the university's offer to be placed on a waiting list. Every Michigan student who agreed to go onto the waiting list in the spring of 1995 was admitted to the University of Michigan for the fall 1995 semester.

The Court's majority found that Gratz and co-plaintiff Hammacher had standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief, relying on Northeastern Fla. Chapter, Associated Gen. Contractors of America v. Jacksonville ^[2], which held that the existence of a discriminatory barrier preventing a petitioner from seeking a benefit on an equal basis sufficed to establish injury, regardless of ultimate ability to obtain the benefit.

The Court, in a ruling by Chief Justice Rehnquist, held that the policy was unconstitutional:

Because the University's use of race in its current freshman admissions policy is not narrowly tailored to achieve respondents' asserted compelling interest in diversity, the admissions policy violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The court held a 6-3 opinion in favor of Gratz.

• Grutter v. Bollinger

1. ^ 539 U.S. 244 (Text of the opinion from Findlaw)
2. ^ 508 U.S. 656 (Text of Assoc. Gen. Contractors v. Jacksonville)

• Text of June 23, 2003 Supreme Court ruling (PDF format)
• Briefs, Decisions and audio recordings (mp3 & realmedia)

v • d • e Affirmative action in the United States
Supreme Court decisions	Brown v. Board of Education (1954) • Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) • Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) • Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
Federal legislation and edicts	Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) • Executive Order 10925 (1961) • Civil Rights Act of 1964 • Executive Order 11246 (1965)
State initiatives	Proposition 209 (CA, 1996) • Initiative 200 (WA, 1998) • Proposal 2 (MI, 2006)
People	Ward Connerly • Arthur Fletcher