Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Regents of the University of Michigan

Full Panel of the Sixth Circuit Strikes Down Prop 2, Michigan’s Anti-Affirmative Action Amendment.

Kate Fort

A split of the Sixth Circuit upheld the 3 judge panel. Our previous coverage of Prop. 2 here.

Here.

COLE, J., delivered the opinion of court in which MARTIN, DAUGHTREY, MOORE, CLAY, WHITE, STRANCH, and DONALD, JJ., joined; and BATCHELDER, C. J., and GIBBONS, ROGERS, SUTTON, COOK, and GRIFFIN, JJ., joined in Part II.B and C. BOGGS, J. (pp. 37–40), delivered a separate dissenting opinion, in which BATCHELDER, C. J., joined. GIBBONS (pp. 41–57), delivered a separate dissenting opinion, in which BATCHELDER, C. J., and ROGERS, SUTTON, and COOK, JJ., joined, and GRIFFIN, J., joined with the exception of Part III. ROGERS (pg. 58) delivered a separate dissenting opinion, in which COOK, J., joined. SUTTON (pp. 59–69), delivered a separate dissenting opinion in which BATCHELDER, C. J., and BOGGS and COOK, JJ., joined. GRIFFIN, J. (pp. 70–74), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.

A student seeking to have her family’s alumni connections considered in her application to one of Michigan’s esteemed public universities could do one of four things to have the school adopt a legacy-conscious admissions policy: she could lobby the admissions committee, she could petition the leadership of the university, she could seek to influence the school’s governing board, or, as a measure of last resort, she could initiate a statewide campaign to alter the state’s constitution. The same cannot be said for a black student seeking the adoption of a constitutionally permissible race-conscious admissions policy. That student could do only one thing to effect change: she could attempt to amend the Michigan Constitution—a lengthy, expensive, and arduous process—to repeal the consequences of Proposal 2. The existence of such a comparative structural burden undermines the Equal Protection Clause’s guarantee that all citizens ought to have equal access to the tools of political change. We therefore REVERSE the judgment of the district court on this issue and find Proposal 2 unconstitutional. We AFFIRM the denial of the University Defendants’ motion to be dismissed as parties, and we AFFIRM the grant of the Cantrell Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to Russell.

Sixth Circuit Grants En Banc Review of Affirmative Action Decision

Kate Fort

Not surprisingly, the Sixth Circuit granted en banc review of the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Regents of the University of Michigan decision, which struck down Prop. 2, Michigan’s anti-affirmative action constitutional amendment.

The order is here.

News coverage here.

WaPo Coverage of College Affirmative Action Circuit Split

Kate Fort

Here.  Our previous coverage of the Sixth Circuit case is here.
College affirmative action back on Supreme Court’s horizon

By , Published: July 31

When the Supreme Court in 2003 narrowly approved the consideration of race in public university admission decisions, it came with loads of restrictions and a sort of expiration date.“We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today,” Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote for the majority in Grutter v. Bollinger .

***

One is from Texas, where a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld a race-conscious admissions policy at the University of Texas at Austin. An attempt to have the entire circuit hear the case failed 9 to 7, and dissenters practically invited the Supreme Court to step in.

The other is from Michigan, where voters in 2006 passed a constitutional amendment to forbid the state’s public colleges and universities from granting “preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.”

A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled 2 to 1 that the amendment violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because it restructures the state’s political structure to the detriment of minorities.

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette (R) on Friday asked the full circuit to review the decision, and said that the Supreme Court would be the next stop if he is unsuccessful with the circuit court.

***

The Texas case, Fisher v. University of Texas , is the farthest along. Washington lawyer Bert W. Rein, who represents Abigail Fisher and Rachel Michalewicz, two students who said UT’s policy discriminated against them, has until mid-September to file a petition with the Supreme Court asking for review.

 

Sixth Circuit Panel Strikes Down Michigan’s Prop. 2 (Anti-Affirmative Action Statute)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here is today’s opinion in Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Regents of the University of Michigan.

An excerpt:

Proposal 2 is a successful voter-initiated amendment to the Michigan Constitution. In relevant part, it prohibits Michigan’s public colleges and universities from granting “preferential treatment to[] any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.” Mich. Const. art. I, § 26. Our task is to determine whether Proposal 2 is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Fortunately, the slate is not blank. The Supreme Court has twice held that equal protection does not permit the kind of political restructuring that Proposal 2 effected. See Washington v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 458 U.S. 457 (1982); Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969). Applying Hunter and Seattle, we find that Proposal 2 unconstitutionally alters Michigan’s political structure by impermissibly burdening racial minorities. Accordingly, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the Defendants-Appellees and order the court to enter summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs-Appellants.