POLS 343

Can the Grutter and Gratz decisions be reconciled? Why or why not?

They cannot be. They used different standards of review, and one was quantifiable while the other wasn't. They are dissimilar cases.

Critical Mass

the size, number, or amount of something that is needed to cause a particular result

Amendment 2

In 1992, Colorado voters approved by initiative an amendment to the Colorado state constitution (Amendment 2) that would have prevented any city, town, or county in the state from taking any legislative, executive, or judicial action to recognize homosexuals as a protected class.

Invidious Discrimination

discrimination against persons or groups that works to their harm and is based on animosity

Benign Discrimination

discrimination but it's not harmful

Overinclusive

Applies to those that do not need to be included in order for the government to achieve it's purpose -Law covers too many

Pool Problem

Elite law schools will NOT be racially diverse if you only go with numbers and don't include race as a factor

What was the holding in Romer v. Evans?

the Court held that Amendment 2 of the Colorado State Constitution violated the equal protection clause. Amendment 2 singled out homosexual and bisexual persons, imposing on them a broad disability by denying them the right to seek and receive specific legal protection from discrimination.

Title IV

to make sure that funds of the United States are not used to support racial discrimination

When is the Rational Basis Test used?

-Where no fundamental rights or suspect classifications are at issue. -Age

Meaningful Representation

a number that encourages underrepresented minority students to participate in the classroom and not feel isolated

How did VMI defend its all-male admissions policy?

-All male admission policy: uses an adversative method -VMI cadets live in Spartan barracks where surveillance is constant and privacy is nonexistent -Historical anomaly -Benefits from adversative method cannot be made available to women unless they are modified -These changes would be so drastic, they would destroy the program -Stresses the Importance of extremely rigorous physical training -Adversative (hazing approach) as justification of excluding women -Presence of women could undermine adversative approach -Want to encourage unit identity not individual -Necessary to develop trust and loyalty -Who can handle it and who can't; way of testing emotional fitness -VMI cadets cannot be hazed the way males are; women can't take the kind of hazing

Grutter v. Bollinger Facts

-Barbara Grutter had 3.8 GPA with 161 LSAT and was rejected -Law School's compelling interest: Promote cross racial understanding Help to break down stereotypes Enables students to understand persons of different race leading to livelier classroom discussion -OC said Race conscious admissions policies must be limited in time -Durational requirement can be met by sunset provisions in RCA policies and periodic reviews to determine whether racial preferences are still necessary

Why did the dissenters in Bakke apply intermediate scrutiny to the case?

-Benign Discrimination -Had the intention to compensate people for past race, level the playing field and help people because they're at a disadvantage -Designed to benefit members -Promote diversity in its broadest sense, not just about race, should just be a plus factor

Grutter Dissent

-Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas, dissented, arguing that the University's "plus" system was, in fact, a thinly veiled and unconstitutional quota system. Chief Justice Rehnquist cited the fact that the percentage of African American applicants closely mirrored the percentage of African American applicants that were accepted. -Justice Kennedy also dissented separately, arguing that the Court failed to apply, in fact, strict scrutiny as required by Justice Powell's opinion in Bakke.

Aspects of Strict Scrutiny

-Compelling State Interest -Narrowly Tailored

Aspects of Intermediate Scrutiny

-Important State Interest -Substantially Related

Substantially Related

-Intermediate Scrutiny -Does the law make sense in the way it was done?

Important State Interest

-Intermediate Scrutiny -Less rigorous than Strict Scrutiny

How did Justice Powell reject 3 of 4 compelling state interests in Bakke?

-Need to reduce shortages of minority doctors in medical school: -Need to dispute past racial injustices (countering effects of societal discrimination) -Need to increase # of doctors who will practice in communities currently under deserved -Increase diversity in broadest sense b/c of educational benefits Yes; academic freedom is a special concern of the First Amendment

What did Justice Powell say about Narrowly Tailored in Bakke?

-Powell believes problem isn't with quota -Special Admissions program solely focused on ethnic diversity which would hinder rather than further attainment of genuine diversity -The entire problem is given to race and not about anything else -Looking at diversity in broadest sense... 16 seats is too much weight -Suggests race as a plus factor -Treats every applicant as an individual -Qualifications would have been weighted fairly

Rationally Related

-Rational Basis Test -Rationally related to any conceivable legitimate government purpose. -Court will not look at actual purpose.

How did Justice Powell apply strict scrutiny in Bakke?

-Rejects 3 out of 4 compelling state interests -Narrowly Tailored

When is Intermediate Scrutiny used?

-Sex based classifications -Sexual orientation

In Grutter, did Justice O'Connor really apply strict scrutiny standard of review? Why or why not?

-She said she did: "We apply SS to racial classifications to smoke out illegitimate uses of race by assuring that govt. is pursuing goal imp. Enough to warrant use of tool" -But there are reasons to believe she applied intermediate, even though she did NOT explicitly say it -The interest of the law school could be seen as important, but it was not really sufficiently compelling in regards to how compelling is traditionally defined -SS means that absolutely all other alternatives have been exhausted but the Law School did NOT reduce the weight of the LSAT, use race as plus factor, or develop a 10% plan

Kennedy on legitimate state interest in Romer v. Evans

-State lacked legitimate interest -Colorado voters were voting on the basis of animus or hatred toward gay people -This kind of legislation is irrational and based on hatred/ dislike

Gratz v. Bollinger Facts

-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 African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans, an automatic 20-point bonus towards their score, while a perfect SAT score was worth 12 points. -The petitioners, Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, both residents of Michigan, applied for admission to the University of Michigan's College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LSA). Gratz applied for admission in the fall of 1995 and Hamacher in the fall of 1997. Both were subsequently denied admission to the university. Gratz and Hamacher were contacted by the Center for Individual Rights, which filed a lawsuit on their behalf in October 1997.

What was the holding of the Court in Bakke?

-There was no single majority opinion. Four of the justices contended that any racial quota system supported by government violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., agreed, casting the deciding vote ordering the medical school to admit Bakke. However, in his opinion, Powell argued that the rigid use of racial quotas as employed at the school violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The remaining four justices held that the use of race as a criterion in admissions decisions in higher education was constitutionally permissible. Powell joined that opinion as well, contending that the use of race was permissible as one of several admission criteria. So, the Court managed to minimize white opposition to the goal of equality (by finding for Bakke) while extending gains for racial minorities through affirmative action. -It upheld affirmative action, allowing race to be one of several factors in college admission policy. However, the court ruled that specific racial quotas, such as the 16 out of 100 seats set aside for minority students by the University of California, Davis School of Medicine, were impermissible. -Powell suggests using race as a plus factor

US v. Virginia Overview

A landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the Virginia Military Institute (VMI)'s long-standing male-only admission policy in a 7-1 decision.

In Gratz, writing for the majority, why did Justice Rehnquist conclude that the race-conscious affirmative action plan was unconstitutional?

-University's policy to distribute 20 points, or 1/5 of points needed for underrepresented minority solely because of race is not narrowly tailored to achieve the interest in educational diversity -Gives too much weight, far more than a plus factor -Does not provide individual consideration

Compelling State Interest

-Used for Strict Scrutiny -A fundamental state purpose, which must be shown before the law can limit some freedoms or treat some groups of people differently

Narrowly Tailored

-Used for Strict Scrutiny -Is there no other effective way to get the same outcome or solution?

How did Justice Ginsburg apply intermediate scrutiny in Virginia?

-Virginia has shown no "exceedingly persuasive justification" for excluding all women from the citizen-soldier training afforded by VMI -No persuasive evidence that VMI policy is in furtherance of a state policy of diversity -The notion that women would downgrade VMI stature, destroy adversative system and the school is judgment hardly proven -Women's success in federal military academies proves this wrong -VMI as state fails to rebut consumption of constitutionality

Scalia on legitimate state interest in Romer v. Evans

-When voters voted for Amendment 2, they were entitled to express their genuine moral disapproval of same sex relationships -The state interest is legitimate; if voters want to enact their genuine, moral disapproval they are allowed to do so

Two arguments against affirmative action

-disadvantages other racial groups -bad unintended consequences

Aspects of Rational Basis Test

-no legitimate state interest -not rationally related

When is Strict Scrutiny used?

-when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed -when a government action applies to a "suspect classification," such as race or national origin.

Underinclusive

A First Amendment doctrine that disfavors narrow laws that target a subset of a recognized category for discriminatory treatment. -Law covers too few

Gratz v. Bollinger Summary

A United States Supreme Court case regarding the University of Michigan undergraduate affirmative action admissions policy. In a 6-3 decision announced on June 23, 2003, Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the Court, ruled the University's point system's "predetermined point allocations" that awarded 20 points to underrepresented minorities "ensures that the diversity contributions of applicants cannot be individually assessed" and was therefore unconstitutional.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke Facts

Allan P. Bakke, an engineer and former United States Marine Corps officer, sought admission to medical school, but was rejected for admission by several, in part because, in his early thirties, he was considered too old. After twice being rejected by the University of California, Davis, he brought suit in state court. The California Supreme Court struck down the program as violative of the rights of white applicants and ordered Bakke admitted.

Why did Justice Powell apply strict scrutiny in Bakke?

because the discrimination was invidious rather than benign SS has strong presumption of unconstitutionality

What standard of review did Justice Ginsburg apply?

Claims to apply Intermediate Scrutiny

Romer v. Evans Facts

Colorado voters adopted Amendment 2 to their State Constitution precluding any judicial, legislative, or executive action designed to protect persons from discrimination based on their "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships." Following a legal challenge by homosexual and other aggrieved parties, the state trial court entered a permanent injunction enjoining Amendment 2's enforcement. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed on appeal.

Standards of Review

Courts way of examining legislative classifications

Reverse Discrimination

Discrimination against the majority group

What standard of review did the dissenters, led by Justice Brennan apply in Bakke?

Intermediate Scrutiny

What was the holiding in US v. Virginia

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated that because VMI failed to show "exceedingly persuasive justification" for its sex-based admissions policy, it violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. In an attempt to satisfy equal protection requirements, the state of Virginia had proposed a parallel program for women, called the Virginia Women's Institute for Leadership (VWIL), located at Mary Baldwin College, a private liberal arts women's college. However, Justice Ginsburg held that the VWIL would not provide women with the same type of rigorous military training, facilities, courses, faculty, financial opportunities, and/or alumni reputation and connections that VMI affords male cadets, a decision evocative of Sweatt v. Painter, when the Court ruled in 1950 that segregated law schools in Texas were unconstitutional, since a newly formed black law school clearly did not provide the same benefits to its students as the state's prestigious and long-maintained white law school.

Grutter Concurrence

Justices Ginsburg and Breyer concurred in judgment, but stated that they did not subscribe to the Court's belief that the affirmative measures in question would be unnecessary in 25 years.

Romer v. Evans Summary

Landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with sexual orientation and state laws. It was the first Supreme Court case to address gay rights since Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), when the Court had held that laws criminalizing sodomy were constitutional.

Grutter v. Bollinger Summary

Landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority in a 5-4 decision ruled that the University of Michigan Law School had a compelling interest in promoting class diversity. The court held that a race-conscious admissions process that may favor "underrepresented minority groups," but that also took into account many other factors evaluated on an individual basis for every applicant, did not amount to a quota system that would have been unconstitutional under Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke Summary

Landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. It upheld affirmative action, allowing race to be one of several factors in college admission policy. However, the court ruled that specific racial quotas, such as the 16 out of 100 seats set aside for minority students by the University of California, Davis School of Medicine, were impermissible.

Did Justice Kennedy really apply the Rational Basis test in Romer v. Evans

No, he applied something more along the lines of intermediate scrutiny or rational basis plus RB has a strong presumption of constitutionality, but interestingly enough, Kennedy says it violates the EPC

Adversative Method

Physical rigor, mental stress, absolute equality of treatment, absence of privacy, minute regulation of behavior and introduction into desirable values

Why should Fisher I use stricter scrutiny?

Prior cases didn't clarify the level of scrutiny Strict in theory, fatal in fact

What standard of review did Justice Kennedy apply in Romer v. Evans?

Rational Basis

What standard of review did Justice Powell apply in Bakke?

Strict Scrutiny

What are the three kinds of Standards of Review

Strict Scrutiny Intermediate Scrutiny Rational Basis Test

US v. Virginia Facts

The Virginia Military Institute (VMI) boasted a long and proud tradition as Virginia's only exclusively male public undergraduate higher learning institution. The United States brought suit against Virginia and VMI alleging that the school's male-only admissions policy was unconstitutional insofar as it violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause.

Was US v. Virginia rightly decided?

Yes, Ginsburg makes a good point that physical differences are enduring and should not be used to perpetuate legal, social, economic inferiority of women VMI really believes women are not cut out for the military; this is a generalization or stereotype that is being fed to justify excluding all women