GRATZ et al. Admission criteria based on race must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest.

At a point of reference, the school provided 12 points for a perfect SAT score. What differentiated Gratz and Hamacher from the rest of the students denied admission to LSA was the lawyers they hired and the certified class action against the University. (§275), Regents University of California v. Bakke, Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India and Others. ... Subject of law: Equal Protection. In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg argued that since the admission policy does not seek to limit or decrease enrollment by any particular racial or ethnic group, and no seats are reserved on the basis of race, that the University did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. 02-516 Argued: April 1, 2003 Decided: June 23, 2003. Posted on November 6, 2012 | Constitutional Law | Tags: Constitutional Law Case Brief. Gratz v. Bollinger. v. BOLLINGER et al. 1251, 1276–1291, 1303 (1998). However, the university simply went too far in their policy to achieve this objective, thereby discriminating against non-minorities on the basis of race in the process. 2d 304 (2003), Your email address will not be published. Synopsis of Rule of Law. No.

Yes, the policy is unconstitutional.

(§269), The Court found that the University’s policy, which automatically distributed one-fifth of the points needed to guarantee admission to every single underrepresented minority applicant solely because of race, was not narrowly tailored to achieve the interest in educational diversity that the university claimed justified its program.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Race may be considered in an individual assessment, but not as a sole or contributing factor for admission. United States Supreme Court. 2411, 2003 WL 21434002 (GINSBURG, J., dissenting); Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200, 272–274, 115 S.Ct. However, the Court finds that the University's current policy, which automatically distributes 20 points, or one-fifth of the points needed to guarantee admission, to every single "underrepresented minority" applicant solely because of race, is … CaseBriefSummary.comCopyright © 2013 | All Rights Reserved, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. Argued April 1, 2003–Decided June 23, 2003. The source of the complaint was the university’s undergraduate admissions policy, which was based on a point system that automatically granted 20 points to applicants from underrepresented minority groups. Petitioners Gratz and Hamacher, both of whom are Michigan residents and Caucasian, applied for admission to the University of Michigan's (University) College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LSA) in 1995 and 1997, respectively. 2d 811 (E.D. Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003) Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher applied for admission to the University of Michigan’s College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LSA) in 1995 and 1997, respectively. The court wrote that the policy was not “narrowly tailored” enough to justify its constitutionality. The Procedure automatically added 20 points onto the application of a minority candidate. 2097, 132 L.Ed.2d 158 (1995) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting); Krieger, Civil Rights Perestroika: Intergroup Relations after Affirmative Action, 86 Calif. L.Rev. Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the University of Michigan undergraduate affirmative action admissions policy. Case background and primary source documents concerning the Supreme Court case of Gratz v.Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger.Dealing with the principle of equal protection and affirmative action, this lesson asks students to evaluate the Court’s reasoning in upholding Grutter while striking down Gratz.

In this scale, they provided 20 points for racial minorities. That is, there is a compelling state interest in enhancing diversity. The question raised before the Supreme Court was whether the University’s use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (§269) They argued that the guidelines the University began using in 1999 did not remotely resemble the kind of consideration of race and ethnicity that Justice Powell endorsed in Bakke, where the Court emphasized the importance of considering each particular applicant as an individual, assessing all of the qualities that individual possesses, and in turn, evaluating that individual’s ability to contribute to the unique setting of higher education. 3 Petitioners’ complaint was a class-action suit alleging “violations and threatened violations of the rights of the plaintiffs and the class they represent to equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth … Facts. (§268) Petitioners further argued that diversity as a basis for employing racial preferences is simply too open-ended, ill-defined, and indefinite to constitute a compelling interest capable of supporting narrowly-tailored means.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Admission criteria based on race must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest. All Rights Reserved. 54 Commercial Street (§268), Petitioners alternatively argued that even if the University’s interest in diversity can constitute a compelling state interest, the District Court erroneously concluded that the University’s use of race in its current freshman admissions policy is narrowly tailored to achieve such an interest. Summary. [1] Linda Hamilton Krieger, Civil Rights Perestroika: Intergroup Relations After Affirmative Action, 86 Cal. The policy scored students higher for admission for students who were underrepresented minorities, socioeconomically disadvantaged, attended a high school with a predominantly underrepresented minority population, or underrepresented in the unit the student is applying to. In October 1997, Gratz and Hamacher filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against respondents, a university, a college, and university officials, alleging racial discrimination. Case summary for Gratz v. Bollinger: Two Caucasians challenged the University of Michigan’s admissions policy after being denied entry into the undergraduate program, claiming the procedure violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause. 5. Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 345, 123 S. Ct. 2325, 2347–48, 156 L. Ed. Race may be considered in an individual assessment, but not as a sole or contributing factor for admission. In 2003, the Supreme Court decided the landmark cases of Gratz v.Bollinger and Grutter v.Bollinger.Several years after CIR’s historic victory in the Fifth Circuit, Hopwood v.Texas, which struck down the use of racial preferences in all states in the Fifth Circuit, the Sixth Circuit court of Appeals upheld the use of the racial preferences program at the University of Michigan. Fax: +44 (0)20 7422 4201, COVID-19 Emergency relief must reach everyone, including minorities and indigenous peoples, COVID-19 Support Grants for Joint National Advocacy Campaigns. In October 1997, Gratz and Hamacher filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against respondents, a university, a college, and university officials, alleging racial discrimination. With a 6-3 majority, the Court answered yes. Under the new system, all students who scored over 100 under the admission policy were automatically admitted. London E1 6LT, UK, Email: minority.rights@mrgmail.orgTelephone: +44 (0)20 7422 4200 The allocation of 20 points for nothing other than race was a large number that discriminated without any particularized or individualized consideration. Required fields are marked *. of Cal. Interestingly, the point system had not been in effect at the time of petitioner’s law suit; it would only be implemented three years later. A sub-grant programme to support for CSOs in MENA, South Asia and Southeast Asia working to address the situation minorities face in the context of COVID-19.

Gratz v. Bollinger, 122 F. Supp.

In her dissent concerning the University of Michigan’s affirmative action admissions policy in Gratz v. Bollinger, Justice Ginsburg relied upon a 1998 journal article authored by Professor Linda Hamilton Krieger. Minority Rights Group International This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Whether a policy of allocating high point values on a scale for race alone violates the equal protection clause of the constitution. Johnson v. California Brief .

... On cross-motions for summary judgment, respondents relied on Justice Powell’s principal opinion in Regents of Univ. (2003) No.

Home » » Case Briefs » Constitutional Law » Gratz v. Bollinger. Summary. Get Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003), United States Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. In this scale, they provided 20 points for racial minorities. (§271-72) It held that the LSA’s automatic distribution of 20 points had the effect of making the factor of race decisive for virtually every minimally qualified underrepresented minority applicant. Gratz v. Bollinger Brief . Despite this worrying global situation, we reaffirm our commitment to safeguarding the rights of minority and indigenous communities and implementing indivisible human rights for all. Citation539 U.S. 244.