Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.
Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action
Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court on April 22, 2014, which held that an amendment to Michigan’s constitution that prohibits state universities from considering race as part of its admissions process does not violate the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.[1][2]
Background
Grutter v. Bollinger
- See also: Grutter v. Bollinger
The Supreme Court, in 2003, upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School in the case Grutter v. Bollinger. The court held that the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the narrowly tailored use of race in university admission plans as part of a compelling interest in promoting student diversity.[3]
Proposal 2
In November of 2006, Michigan voters passed a proposition, Proposal 2, to amend the state constitution. The amendment prohibited "all sex- and race-based preferences in public education, public employment, and public contracting." In response, a group of citizens and interest groups formed the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigration Rights and Fight for Equality by Any Means Necessary, collectively called the Coalition. The Coalition sued the governor, the regents and boards of trustees of three state universities, arguing that the proposition violated Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.[2][4]
The district court found in favor of the defendants. The plaintiffs appealed the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, which found the amendment unconstitutional. The case was further appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case in 2013.[1][2]
Decision
On April 22, 2014, in a 6-2 decision, the Supreme Court held that the amendment was constitutional and did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The opinion of the three-justice plurality was delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy. The plurality held that the case was about the right of voters in a state to choose to prohibit the use of race preferences in the decisions of governmental bodies. The plurality held that the court could not disempower voters from making the choice the Michigan voters made.[2][5]
Chief Justice John Roberts concurred, writing in his opinion that the use of racial preferences might do more harm than good in raising racial awareness. Justice Antonin Scalia, in his concurring opinion, wrote that since the amendment prohibits consideration of race, it provides equal protection under the law. Justice Clarence Thomas joined in the opinion. Justice Stephen Breyer also wrote a concurring opinion, writing that the issue of racial preferences in admissions should be left up to the voters rather than the court.[2][5]
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. Sotomayor argued that the democratic process does not provide sufficient protection against the oppression of minority groups, and that the Equal Protection Clause was intended for this purpose. She argued that the amendment has a racial focus and places a greater burden on the minority, and therefore violates the Equal Protection Clause. Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in the case.[2][5]
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 SCOTUSBlog, " Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action," accessed July 16, 2015
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 Oyez.org, "SCHUETTE v. BAMN," accessed July 16, 2015
- ↑ Justia.com, "Grutter v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 306 (2003)," accessed July 15, 2015
- ↑ Associated Press, "Court to consider Mich. affirmative action ban," November 17, 2009
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Justia.com, "Schuette v. Coal. Defend Affirmative Action, Integration & Immigration Rights 572 U.S. ___ (2014)," accessed July 16, 2015
