Schuette v. Bamn, 134 S. Ct. 1623 (U.S. 2014)

Facts: Following the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in two cases involving the use of race in admissions at the University of Michigan (see digests of Gratz and Grutter), Michigan voters adopted an amendment to the state constitution prohibiting state and other governmental entities from granting preferences, including racial preferences, in a range of actions and decisions. Under the amendment, which became Article I, Section 26, of the state constitution, state universities cannot include race-based preferences in admissions decisions. A group of faculty, students, and prospective students, along with others, challenged the constitutionality of Section 26 under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The federal court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted judgment before trial to the state, upholding the constitutionality of Section 26. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment. The U.S. Supreme Court then granted review and affirmed the constitutionality of Section 26. Holding: The Court began by clarifying that this ruling did not disturb earlier rulings that granted the constitutionality of race-conscious admissions policies in higher education under certain circumstances. Instead, the question here is whether a state’s voters can opt to prohibit the consideration of race in governmental decisions, particularly in higher education admissions. The federal system of government encourages the notion of states as laboratories for trial and experiment, began the Court. Currently, American citizens in many states are debating whether and when racial preferences in governmental decision making are desirable, and several states have enacted policies like the one at issue in this case. Other states still maintain some systems of racial preferences. This case is not about the conclusion a particular state’s citizenry may reach about race-based preferences; it is about their right to reach a conclusion through legitimate democratic processes. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution empowers the Court to set aside Section 26, a decision reached by state citizens in a process authorized by state law. summarized by Ingrid M. Johansen posted June 2, 2014