Key Takeaways

1. Gratz v. Bollinger (539 U.S. 244, 2003) struck down the University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions policy for automatically awarding points based on race, ruling it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. The Supreme Court clarified that while diversity is a compelling interest, admissions policies must be narrowly tailored and provide individualized consideration rather than mechanistic race-based preferences.
3. The decision shaped the future of affirmative action in higher education by requiring universities to design holistic admissions processes that do not treat race as a decisive or automatic factor.

Introduction

Gratz v. Bollinger is a pivotal Supreme Court case that reshaped the legal landscape of affirmative action in higher education. Decided in 2003, this case addressed the constitutionality of the University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions policy, which awarded a fixed number of points to applicants from certain underrepresented minority groups. The Court’s ruling established crucial guidelines for how race can be considered in university admissions, emphasizing the need for individualized review and rejecting quota-like systems. This guide provides a comprehensive overview of the case, its background, legal arguments, the Supreme Court’s decision, and its lasting impact on affirmative action.

For those interested in the full text of the opinion or oral arguments, official sources include the Oyez Project, Justia, and the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School.

Background of Gratz v. Bollinger

The University of Michigan’s Admissions Policy

In the late 1990s, the University of Michigan’s College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LSA) used a point-based admissions system. Applicants were evaluated on a 150-point scale, with points awarded for academic achievements, extracurricular activities, legacy status, geographic factors, and other criteria. Notably, the system automatically awarded 20 points (out of the required 100 for guaranteed admission) to applicants from underrepresented racial or ethnic groups, including African American, Hispanic, and Native American students.

This policy was designed to increase diversity within the student body, a goal the university considered both educationally and socially beneficial. However, the automatic nature of the points awarded for race became the focal point of legal contention.

Plaintiffs and Legal Challenge

The case was initiated by Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, two white Michigan residents who applied for undergraduate admission and were denied. They argued that the university’s policy discriminated against them based on race, thereby violating:

• The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,
• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
• 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

Gratz and Hamacher filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other non-minority applicants who were similarly affected by the admissions policy. Their central claim was that the university’s use of race as a decisive factor in admissions unfairly disadvantaged them and others who did not receive the automatic point boost.

Procedural History

The case was first heard in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, which found aspects of the admissions policy unconstitutional. The case was then appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and ultimately, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the constitutional questions at stake.

Legal Issues Presented

Equal Protection Clause

At the heart of Gratz v. Bollinger was the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits states from denying any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The clause has been interpreted to mean that any government action that classifies individuals by race is subject to strict scrutiny—the highest level of judicial review.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Since the University of Michigan received federal funds, its admissions policies were subject to Title VI’s requirements.

42 U.S.C. § 1981

This statute ensures that all individuals within the United States have the same right to make and enforce contracts, regardless of race. Plaintiffs argued that the admissions policy violated their rights under this provision as well.

Supreme Court Arguments

Petitioners’ Arguments

Gratz and Hamacher, represented by the Center for Individual Rights, argued that the university’s admissions policy was unconstitutional because:

• It automatically awarded points based on race, making race a decisive factor in admissions.
• The system did not provide individualized consideration of applicants, as required by previous Supreme Court precedent, notably Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.
• The policy functioned as a quota system in practice, even if not in name, by guaranteeing a significant advantage to minority applicants.

Respondents’ Arguments

The University of Michigan contended that:

• The admissions policy served a compelling governmental interest in achieving a diverse student body, which the Supreme Court had previously recognized as legitimate.
• The point system was a holistic method that considered multiple factors, not just race.
• The policy did not amount to a quota but rather sought to ensure a critical mass of underrepresented minorities, which was essential for educational diversity.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

Majority Opinion

On June 23, 2003, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision striking down the University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions policy. The majority opinion, delivered by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, held that:

• The policy’s automatic distribution of 20 points to every underrepresented minority applicant was not narrowly tailored to achieve the interest in educational diversity.
• The system failed to provide the individualized consideration required by the Equal Protection Clause.
• While diversity is a compelling interest, the means of achieving it must be flexible and holistic, not mechanistic or automatic.

The Court emphasized that the policy was essentially indistinguishable from a quota system, which the Court had previously found impermissible in Bakke. The majority concluded that the university’s method “ensures that the diversity contributions of applicants cannot be individually assessed and are entirely dependent upon their race.”

Dissenting Opinions

Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg dissented. The dissenters argued that:

• The majority’s approach was overly rigid and failed to recognize the university’s good faith efforts to comply with Supreme Court precedent.
• The admissions policy did not constitute a quota, as it did not reserve a fixed number of seats for minority students.
• The system was a practical way to achieve a diverse student body in a competitive admissions environment.

Relationship to Grutter v. Bollinger

Decided the same day, Grutter v. Bollinger addressed the University of Michigan Law School’s admissions policy, which considered race as one factor among many in a highly individualized review process. In contrast to Gratz, the Supreme Court upheld the law school’s policy, finding it sufficiently flexible and narrowly tailored.

The juxtaposition of these two cases clarified the Court’s position: Race can be considered in admissions, but only as part of an individualized, holistic evaluation. Mechanistic or automatic systems that treat race as a decisive factor are unconstitutional.

For more, see the Oyez summary of Grutter v. Bollinger.

Legal Reasoning and Analysis

Strict Scrutiny and Narrow Tailoring

The Court reaffirmed that any government action involving racial classifications must undergo strict scrutiny. This requires:

1. Compelling Interest: There must be a compelling governmental interest. The Court recognized diversity in higher education as such an interest.
2. Narrow Tailoring: The means chosen must be precisely tailored to achieve that interest without unnecessary infringement on the rights of others.

The University of Michigan’s policy failed the narrow tailoring requirement because it did not allow for the individualized consideration of applicants. Instead, race was used as a decisive, automatic factor.

Individualized Consideration

The Court cited Bakke as precedent, emphasizing that admissions programs must consider all elements of diversity, not just race, and must evaluate each applicant as an individual. The LSA’s point system, by automatically awarding points based solely on race, did not meet this standard.

Distinction from Quotas

While the university argued that its system was not a quota, the Court found that the automatic point allocation functioned similarly by guaranteeing a substantial advantage to minority applicants. The Court reiterated that quotas are impermissible under the Equal Protection Clause.

Impact of Gratz v. Bollinger

Immediate Effects

The ruling required the University of Michigan and other public universities to revise their admissions policies, eliminating any systems that automatically awarded points or other benefits based solely on race. Instead, admissions offices were compelled to develop holistic review processes that consider race as one factor among many, without making it decisive.

Broader Implications for Affirmative Action

Gratz v. Bollinger became a cornerstone for how affirmative action could be implemented in higher education. The decision:

• Reinforced that diversity is a compelling interest but cannot justify mechanistic race-based preferences.
• Required universities to demonstrate that their admissions policies are narrowly tailored and provide individualized assessment.
• Served as a template for future legal challenges to affirmative action policies, including those decided in the 2010s and 2020s.

Influence on Later Cases

The principles articulated in Gratz have been cited in subsequent Supreme Court cases, such as Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (2013, 2016) and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023), which continued to refine the legal boundaries of affirmative action. Each case has built upon the requirement of individualized, holistic review and the prohibition against automatic, race-based preferences.

Policy and Practical Considerations

Designing Lawful Admissions Policies

Universities seeking to promote diversity must now ensure that their admissions processes:

• Use race as one factor among many, not as an automatic or decisive criterion.
• Provide individualized, holistic review of each applicant.
• Avoid systems that can be construed as de facto quotas or that confer fixed advantages based solely on race.

Admissions officers and university counsel must carefully document how their policies are implemented and regularly review them for compliance with evolving legal standards.

Ongoing Debates

Gratz v. Bollinger did not end the debate over affirmative action. Critics argue that any consideration of race is inherently unfair, while proponents assert that race-conscious policies are necessary to address historical and ongoing inequalities. The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence has sought to balance these competing interests, but the issue remains contentious, with state legislatures and ballot initiatives also playing a role in shaping policy.

Resources for Further Research

For those seeking more detailed information, the following official resources provide comprehensive case materials:

• Oyez Project: Gratz v. Bollinger – Case summary, oral arguments, and decision.
• Justia: Gratz v. Bollinger – Full text of the Supreme Court’s opinion and related documents.
• Legal Information Institute: Gratz v. Bollinger – Case summary and analysis.

Conclusion

Gratz v. Bollinger stands as a landmark decision in the field of constitutional law and higher education policy. By striking down the University of Michigan’s automatic, race-based point system, the Supreme Court clarified that while diversity is a compelling interest, admissions policies must be carefully crafted to ensure individualized consideration and avoid mechanistic preferences. The case continues to inform debates and litigation over affirmative action and serves as a guiding precedent for universities nationwide.

For attorneys and legal professionals seeking deeper analysis, Counsel Stack offers robust legal research tools and resources to navigate the complexities of affirmative action law and related constitutional issues. Visit www.counselstack.com to learn more.

Disclaimer: This guide provides a general overview of Gratz v. Bollinger and is intended for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. The law in this area is complex and evolving, and there may be nuances and exceptions not covered here. For specific legal questions or advice, consult a qualified attorney.