Grutter v. Bollinger

539 U.S. 306 (2003)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D seeks “a mix of students with varying backgrounds and experiences who will respect and learn from each other.” D requires admissions officials to look beyond grades and test scores to other criteria that are important to the Law School's educational objectives. This policy reaffirms D's longstanding commitment to “one particular type of diversity,” that is, “racial and ethnic diversity with special reference to the inclusion of students from groups which have been historically discriminated against, like African-Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans, who without this commitment might not be represented in our student body in meaningful numbers.” P is a white Michigan resident who applied to the Law School in 1996 with a 3.8-grade point average and 161 LSAT score. D was first put on a waiting list but then was rejected. P then sued D alleging that Ds discriminated against her on the basis of race in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. P claims that she was rejected because D uses race as a “predominant” factor. A 15-day bench trial was held. All of the witnesses for D claimed there was no quota system, but there was a goal to get a critical mass of minorities into the school. One expert witness predicted that if race were not considered, only 10 percent of those applicants admitted under the race card would have been admitted. The underrepresented minority students would have comprised 4 percent of the entering class in 2000 instead of the actual figure of 14.5 percent. The District Court concluded that the Law School's use of race as a factor in admissions decisions was unlawful. Applying strict scrutiny, it held that D’s asserted interest in assembling a diverse student body was not compelling because “the attainment of a racially diverse class . . . was not recognized as such by Bakke and is not a remedy for past discrimination.” D appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed. It held that the Law School's use of race was narrowly tailored because race was merely a “potential ‘plus' factor.” The Supreme Court granted certiorari.