What did Grutter v Bollinger do?
Bollinger, a case decided by the United States Supreme Court on June 23, 2003, upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School. The decision permitted the use of racial preference in student admissions to promote student diversity.
Is Grutter v Bollinger still good law?
No. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the Court held that the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the Law School’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.
How does Gratz v Bollinger differ from Grutter v Bollinger?
Answer: Gratz v. Bollinger challenged the undergraduate admissions system at UM’s College of Literature, the Arts and Sciences (“LSA”); Grutter v. The Court struck down the undergraduate system in Gratz but upheld the Law School admissions system at issue in Grutter.
Why did the Supreme Court rule against Barbara Grutter?
Grutter alleged that the school made race a “predominate” factor in admissions decisions and that the school intentionally discriminated against whites, and that this violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids states from denying “to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.” In its …
Who won the Gratz v Bollinger case?
Bollinger 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 that the university’s point system was too mechanistic and therefore unconstitutional.
How did the Supreme Court decision of Grutter v Bollinger affect colleges and universities quizlet?
Bollinger, a 2003 case in which the Supreme Court ruled that race could play a limited role in the admissions policies of public universities. An overruling of Grutter could end affirmative action policies in admissions at U.S. public universities.
What is critical mass in Grutter?
[46] Grutter II, supra note 40, at 747: “Director Munzel testified that ‘critical mass’ is a number sufficient so that under-represented minority students can contribute to classroom dialogue and not feel isolated.” (Emphasis added.)
What is strict scrutiny test?
Strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that courts use to determine the constitutionality of certain laws. To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a “compelling governmental interest,” and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest.
Who won Gratz v Bollinger?
Why did the Supreme Court rule in Gratz v Bollinger that the University of Michigan’s use of racial preferences violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment?
We conclude, therefore, that 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.
What is the significance of Gratz v Bollinger?
What did Grutter v Bollinger establish in the USA?
The Court held that a student admissions process that favors “underrepresented minority groups” does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause so long as it takes into account other factors evaluated on an individual basis for every applicant….
| Grutter v. Bollinger | |
|---|---|
| Docket no. | 02-241 |