Barbara Grutter, a white Michigan resident, sued the University of Michigan Law School for denying her admission, alleging discrimination against whites. The District Court ruled against the Law School's use of race in admissions. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding diversity a compelling interest. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, also ruled the Law School's affirmative action program was constitutional as it conducted highly individualized reviews and considered race alongside other factors to achieve a diverse student body.

1. +
Grutter v
Bollinger
(2003)
Acting For Affirmative
Action
Kacey Katzenmeyer and Tori hall

2. +
Who was involved?
Barbara Grutter, a white resident of Michigan, sued the
University of Michigan’s Law School
Barbara Grutter University of
Michigan’s Law
School

3. +
What Went Down
 Grutter applied to the University of Michigan's Law School
with a 3.8 undergraduate GPA and an LSAT score of 161,
but she was denied admission.
 The Law School admits that it uses race as a factor in
making admissions decisions because it serves a
"compelling interest in achieving diversity among its student
body,” so Grutter sued the school in a lower federal court
charging that its admissions policy was unconstitutional.
 She alleged that the school intentionally discriminated
against whites, and that this violated the Fourteenth
Amendment.

4. +
Where and When?
 Grutter sued the University
of Michigan's Law School
(specifically, Graduate
Admissions) in 1997.
 The case was not argued in
the Supreme Court until
April of 2003, and not
decided until that June.
 The Chief Justice at the
time was William H.
Rehnquist.

5. + The first to hear the Bollinger appealed, and the
Court of Appeals reversed the
case, the District
Court concluded that lower decision, holding that the
the Law School's opinion in Regents of the
stated interest in University of California v.
achieving diversity in Bakke (1978) constituted a
the student body was binding precedent establishing
NOT a compelling diversity as a compelling
one and ruled its use governmental interest which,
of race in the
admissions process under strict scrutiny review,
unconstitutional. justified the use of racial
preferences in admissions.
Grutter appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which issued a
writ of certiorari. The case was added to the docket for the year
2003.

6. +
Oral Arguments
In the oral argument, Grutter’s
advocate alleged that the University of
Michigan Law School’s use of racial
preferences in student admissions
violated the Equal Protection Clause of
the Fouthteenth Amendment —which
Grutter forbids states from denying "to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the law"—and Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964—which
prevents discrimination (on grounds of
race, color, or national origin) by
government agencies that receive
federal funds.
An amicus curiae brief was filed by Theodore B. Olson, an attorney, in
support of Grutter.

7. +
Oral Arguments
The mission of the law school's intensely
competitive admission process was to
achieve "a mix of students with varying
backgrounds and experiences who will
respect and learn from one another." In its
defense, the university maintained that it did
not employ racial quotas or percentages in
its admissions process but simply sought a
Bollinger "critical mass" of underrepresented
minorities in each entering class in order to
meet its mission. The school claimed it
examined both concrete factors (test
scores, undergraduate performance) and a
host of subjective factors
(race, ethnicity, reputation of undergraduate
school) in making its admissions decisions.

8. +
After a conference, applying the
logic of Regents of University of
Supreme California v. Bakke (1978), the
Court Ruling Supreme Court, in a 5-4
decision written by Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor, ruled
that the University of Michigan’s
affirmative action program WAS
constitutional.

9. +
Opinions of the Court
Majority Opinion
in favor of the University of Michigan, held that the Equal
Protection Clause does not prohibit the Law School's narrowly
tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further their
interest in obtaining a diverse student body. The Court reasoned
that, because the Law School conducts a highly individualized
review of each applicant, no acceptance or rejection is based
automatically on a variable such as race; all factors that may
contribute to diversity are meaningfully considered alongside
race, so nonminority applicants are not unduly harmed.
Minority Opinion
argued the Law School's admissions policy was an attempt to
achieve an unconstitutional type of racial balancing.

10. +
Grutter v Bollinger:
A Landmark Case
The Grutter case affirmed and refined the Supreme
Court's position on affirmative action a quarter
century after its initial decision in Regents of
University of California v. Bakke (1978). The Court
made clear that affirmative action programs are
only constitutional if they consider race as one
factor in an individualized evaluation, and only to
achieve the goal of "class diversity."
However, this ruling may soon be up for review once
more in Fisher v. University of Texas, and the results
may be different.