Search results
People also ask
What is Gratz v Bollinger?
Did Gratz v Bollinger violate the Fourteenth Amendment?
Did Gratz v Bollinger violate the Equal Protection Clause?
What happened in Grutter v Bollinger?
What did the Sixth Circuit decide in Bollinger v Grutter?
What factors affect Gratz v Bollinger?
Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the University of Michigan undergraduate affirmative action admissions policy.
Bollinger decisions, pair of cases addressing the issue of affirmative action in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 23, 2003, that the undergraduate admissions policy of the University of Michigan violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Gratz v. Bollinger: The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a public university from using an undergraduate admissions policy in which race is the sole reason behind awarding 20 percent of the minimum points required for admission.
Apr 13, 2017 · Bollinger, United States Supreme Court, (2003) Case summary for Gratz v. Bollinger: Two Caucasians challenged the University of Michigan’s admissions policy after being denied entry into the undergraduate program, claiming the procedure violated the 14th Amendment ’s Equal Protection clause.
In October 1997, Gratz and Hamacher filed a class action suit against the University, the LSA, Lee Bollinger, and James Duderstadt. They argued that the admission procedure discriminated against certain racial and ethnic groups in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Mar 28, 2024 · The Supreme Court reversed the portion of the District Court’s decision that upheld the University’s admissions guidelines, finding them to violate constitutional and statutory provisions by not being narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling interest in diversity.
For the reasons set forth in Grutter v. Bollinger, post, at 15–21, the Court has today rejected petitioners’ argument that diversity cannot constitute a compelling state interest. However, the Court finds that the University’s current policy, which automatically distributes 20 points, or one-fifth of the points needed to guarantee ...
