Grutter v. Bollinger

E90995

United States Supreme Court case landmark affirmative action case

Grutter v. Bollinger is a landmark 2003 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the limited use of race as one factor in holistic law school admissions to promote educational diversity.

Jump to: Surface forms Statements Referenced by

Observed surface forms (1)

Surface form	Occurrences
influenced later affirmative action cases such as Grutter v. Bollinger	1

Statements (50)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	United States Supreme Court case ⓘ landmark affirmative action case ⓘ
areaOfLaw	civil rights law ⓘ constitutional law ⓘ education law ⓘ
arguedDate	2003-04-01 ⓘ
chiefJusticeAtDecision	William H. Rehnquist ⓘ
citation	539 U.S. 306 ⓘ
concurrenceInPartAndDissentInPartBy	Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer NERFINISHED ⓘ
constitutionalProvisionInterpreted	Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ surface form: Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
court	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decisionDate	2003-06-23 ⓘ
dissentBy	Anthony M. Kennedy NERFINISHED ⓘ Antonin Scalia NERFINISHED ⓘ Clarence Thomas NERFINISHED ⓘ William H. Rehnquist ⓘ
docketNumber	02-241 ⓘ
followedPrecedent	Regents of the University of California v. Bakke ⓘ
fullName	Grutter v. Bollinger self-link ⓘ
holding	The Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body. ⓘ The University of Michigan Law School’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions is constitutional. ⓘ
impact	upheld race-conscious admissions policies in higher education for diversity purposes ⓘ
joinedMajorityBy	David H. Souter NERFINISHED ⓘ John Paul Stevens NERFINISHED ⓘ Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer NERFINISHED ⓘ
jurisdiction	United States of America ⓘ surface form: United States
laterOverruledInPartBy	Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College ⓘ Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College ⓘ surface form: Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina
legalIssue	Equal Protection Clause ⓘ surface form: Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ⓘ affirmative action in higher education admissions ⓘ
locationOfOriginatingInstitution	Ann Arbor ⓘ surface form: Ann Arbor, Michigan
majorityOpinionBy	Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ
overruledPrecedent	none ⓘ
petitioner	Barbara Grutter ⓘ
policyFeature	consideration of race as one factor among many in admissions ⓘ individualized, holistic review of applicants ⓘ
programType	holistic law school admissions policy ⓘ
rearguedWith	Gratz v. Bollinger ⓘ
recognizedInterest	educational diversity as a compelling state interest ⓘ
rejectedPractice	racial quotas ⓘ
relatedCase	Gratz v. Bollinger ⓘ
respondent	Lee Bollinger ⓘ University of Michigan Law School ⓘ
standardApplied	strict scrutiny ⓘ
statuteInterpreted	Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ⓘ
subsequentLimitationBy	Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin ⓘ
yearDecided	2003 ⓘ

Referenced by (9)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Equal Protection Clause → basisFor → Grutter v. Bollinger ⓘ

Gratz v. Bollinger → comparedWith → Grutter v. Bollinger ⓘ

Gratz v. Bollinger → distinguishedFrom → Grutter v. Bollinger ⓘ

Grutter v. Bollinger → fullName → Grutter v. Bollinger self-link ⓘ

Bakke → impact → Grutter v. Bollinger ⓘ

this entity surface form: influenced later affirmative action cases such as Grutter v. Bollinger

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin → relatedCase → Grutter v. Bollinger ⓘ

Gratz v. Bollinger → relatedCase → Grutter v. Bollinger ⓘ

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 → relatedCase → Grutter v. Bollinger ⓘ

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke → subsequentCaseInfluenced → Grutter v. Bollinger ⓘ