Gratz v. Bollinger
| Gratz v. Bollinger | |
|---|---|
 6th Cir. 2003) | |
| Holding | |
| A state university's admission policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because its ranking system gave an automatic point increase to all racial minorities rather than making individual determinations. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Rehnquist, joined by O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas |
| Concurrence | O'Connor, joined by Breyer (in part) |
| Concurrence | Thomas |
| Concurrence | Breyer (in judgment) |
| Dissent | Stevens, joined by Souter |
| Dissent | Souter, joined by Ginsburg (in part) |
| Dissent | Ginsburg, joined by Souter, Breyer (in part) |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV | |
Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003), was a
Case
The University of Michigan used a 150-point scale to rank applicants, with 100 points needed to guarantee admission. The University gave underrepresented ethnic groups, including
The petitioners, Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, both residents of
Like
U.S. Supreme Court consideration
Issue of standing
It has been argued by some that Jennifer Gratz lacked legal standing to bring this action. Gratz applied in 1995, three years before the University of Michigan adopted its points system. Gratz could not claim injury as a result of the points system, and thus, under traditional legal rules, Gratz lacked standing. Gratz chose not to attend the University of Michigan by declining the university's offer to be placed on a waiting list. Every Michigan student who agreed to go onto the waiting list in the spring of 1995 was admitted to the University of Michigan for the Fall 1995 semester.[citation needed] However, Gratz argues that she did fill out the paperwork for the waiting list, but the University claims it got lost.
Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the court. The court's majority found that Gratz and co-plaintiff Hamacher had standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief, relying on Northeastern Fla. Chapter, Associated Gen. Contractors of America v. Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656 (1993). Here the "injury in fact" necessary to establish standing in the case was the denial of equal treatment resulting from the imposition of the barrier, and not in the ultimate inability to obtain the benefit.
Opinion of the Court
![[icon]](/File:Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg){kind=small} | This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (June 2023) |
The court held that because the university’s use of race in its current freshman admissions policy was not narrowly tailored to achieve the respondents' asserted interest in diversity, the policy violated the Equal Protection Clause.
Dissent
Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg dissented. Ginsburg wrote that "government decisionmakers may properly distinguish between policies of exclusion and inclusion...Actions designed to burden groups long denied full citizenship stature are not sensibly ranked with measures taken to hasten the day when entrenched discrimination and its after effects have been extirpated."[3]
See also
- Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
- List of class action lawsuits
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 539
References
- ^ Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003).
- ^ "Gratz v. Bollinger: Motion for Summary Judgment". Regents of the University of Michigan. Archived from the original on February 21, 2014. Retrieved February 3, 2014.
- Loyola University Chicago Law Journal. 36: 137. Retrieved September 26, 2020.
Further reading
- ISBN 978-0-7006-1549-0.
External links
- Text of Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003) is available from: Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
- Transcript of April 1, 2003 Supreme Court arguments (PDF format)