Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Grutter v. Bollinger

Supreme Court of the United States · 2003 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional Lawaffirmative actionequal protectionlaw school admissionsdiversity interestEqual Protection Clausestrict scrutinycompelling interest

Facts

The University of Michigan Law School used an admissions policy that required individualized review of each applicant's entire file, including grades, LSAT scores, recommendations, essays, and other experiences and talents. The policy sought a broadly diverse student body and gave special attention to racial and ethnic diversity, particularly the inclusion of underrepresented minority students in meaningful numbers or a 'critical mass,' but it did not set fixed quotas or reserve seats. Barbara Grutter, a white Michigan resident with a 3.8 GPA and 161 LSAT, was waitlisted and then denied admission in 1996. She alleged the law school used race as a predominant factor and lacked a compelling interest for doing so.

Issue

Whether the University of Michigan Law School's consideration of race as one factor in a highly individualized admissions process violates the Equal Protection Clause. More specifically, whether obtaining the educational benefits of a diverse student body is a compelling interest and whether the law school's admissions policy was narrowly tailored to serve that interest.

Rule

All governmental racial classifications are subject to strict scrutiny and are constitutional only if they are narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest. In the context of public higher education, student body diversity is a compelling state interest, and a university may consider race as one flexible 'plus' factor in an individualized, holistic admissions process if it does not use quotas, does not insulate applicants from competition, seriously considers workable race-neutral alternatives, does not unduly burden nonminority applicants, and limits race-conscious measures in time.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lakeview State Law School, a public institution in Illinois, says it considers race as one factor in admissions because a broadly diverse class improves classroom discussion, reduces stereotyping, and prepares graduates for leadership in a diverse society. An applicant denied admission argues that diversity can never qualify as a compelling interest under the Equal Protection Clause.

How should a court rule on the applicant’s argument?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, all governmental racial classifications receive strict scrutiny, but student-body diversity in public higher education can be a compelling state interest. The Court specifically held that obtaining the educational benefits flowing from a diverse student body is compelling, including cross-racial understanding, reduction of stereotypes, and preparation for work, citizenship, and leadership. The Constitution does not limit compelling interests in this area to remedying past discrimination alone.