Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Regents of University of California v. Bakke

Supreme Court of the United States · 1978 · Constitutional Law

affirmative actionequal protectionrace-conscious admissionsstrict scrutinyTitle VIstrict scrutinysuspect classificationTitle VI

Facts

The Davis Medical School operated a special admissions program alongside its regular process. Under that program, 16 of 100 seats were filled through a separate committee for applicants from designated minority groups, and white applicants could not compete for those seats, while preferred applicants could compete for all seats. Allan Bakke, a white applicant, was rejected in 1973 and 1974 despite scores higher than some applicants admitted through the special program. The University conceded it could not prove Bakke would have been denied admission absent the unlawful program.

Issue

Whether the Davis Medical School's special admissions program, which set aside 16 seats for certain minority applicants through a separate admissions track, violated the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI. Also, whether a state university is forbidden from considering race at all in admissions.

Rule

Racial and ethnic distinctions by the State are inherently suspect and must be justified by a substantial, constitutionally permissible interest, with the use of race necessary and precisely tailored to serve that interest. Title VI reaches only those racial classifications that would violate the Equal Protection Clause or the Fifth Amendment. A university may consider race or ethnic background as one factor among many in an individualized admissions process to further the educational benefits of a diverse student body, but it may not insulate preferred applicants from competition by reserving a fixed number of seats for them.

🔒

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.

The State College of New Mexico adopts a scholarship policy reserving 15 of 120 awards for applicants from specified racial groups. When challenged by Owen Parker, who is white, the college argues that strict scrutiny should not apply because white applicants are not a politically powerless minority.

How should a court analyze the college's argument?

Explanation. The controlling rule is that state racial and ethnic classifications are inherently suspect and call for the most exacting judicial examination. The level of scrutiny does not depend on whether the burden falls on a traditionally disadvantaged minority or on white applicants. The opinion rejects the argument that strict scrutiny is limited to classifications harming only discrete and insular minorities.