Supreme Court: Voters' Initiative To End Affirmative Action Is Constitutional

by Fisher Phillips
Contact

In a highly anticipated decision, the Supreme Court upheld Michigan’s Proposal 2, which amended the Michigan Constitution to prohibit racial preferences in admissions to public schools and government programs.

In a 6-2 decision, the Supreme Court disagreed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, which had ruled that the Michigan ballot initiative unduly burdened members of minority groups from achieving their goals in the political process. The Supreme Court concluded that Michigan’s Proposal 2 did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that states may repeal affirmative-action policies through state constitutional amendments. Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. 

Background:  Michigan Law Broadly Barred Affirmative Action In The Public Sphere

The lawsuit stems from a 2006 voter initiative in which Michigan voters approved a measure to amend the state Constitution to prohibit the government from “discriminat[ing] against, or grant[ing] preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” The voter initiative, called the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, effectively banned affirmative action at state schools. 

Michigan enacted the measure just three years after the Supreme Court decided Grutter v. Bollinger, where in a 5-4 vote the Court held that the University of Michigan Law School could grant admissions preferences to minority applicants in the interest of fostering diversity for the entire study body. (Grutter barred the use of racial admissions quotas, however.)

A broad coalition of civil-liberties groups, including the NAACP and the ACLU, challenged Michigan’s law banning affirmative action in the public sector.  The district court upheld the constitutionality of Michigan’s law, but the 6th Circuit reversed. Last year, the Supreme Court agreed to review the case.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court held that states may repeal affirmative-action policies through state constitutional amendments. The Supreme Court disagreed with the 6th Circuit that the Michigan amendment violated equal-protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment when race-based university admissions decisions were shifted from the university to the state. 

Writing for the Court, Justice Kennedy stated “this case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it.” Further, “deliberative debate on sensitive issues such as racial preferences all too often may shade into rancor,” but, according to Justice Kennedy, “that does not justify removing certain court-determined issues from the voters’ reach. Democracy.” To restrict Michigan voters from making their own decision on affirmative action would be “an unprecedented restriction on a fundamental right held not just by one person but by all in common.”

A Lasting Impact On Future Voter Initiatives, Hiring, And Admissions

The latest decision continues a decade-long trend of retrenchment against affirmative action, with Michigan in the legal foreground. In 2003, the Supreme Court rendered decisions related to the University of Michigan’s undergraduate and law school admissions processes in Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger.  After Gratz and Grutter were handed down – authorizing (but not requiring) a limited use of race/ethnicity in admissions to achieve compelling mission-driven interests – a handful of states passed voter initiatives to adopt state constitutional amendments and laws that prohibit consideration of race or ethnicity by public institutions in enrollment and other practices, such as hiring. 

Besides Michigan’s initiative, four other states – California, Nebraska, Arizona, and Oklahoma – implemented voter-initiated state constitutional bans. (Florida has adopted a similar ban relating to admissions through administrative regulation, although other practices are also influenced by an executive order; New Hampshire through a state statute; and Washington through a state statute initiated by a voter ballot initiative.)  

Prior to yesterday's Supreme Court decision, a federal circuit split existed on the issue of the constitutionality of state bans that prohibit the consideration of race in the admissions procedures at public institutions of higher education. Although the 6th Circuit rejected Michigan’s law, a 9th Circuit judicial panel upheld a California proposition in 1997 – applying the same legal principles but reaching a different result. (Notably, the California proposition served as the foundation for the similarly worded Michigan ban.)

Yesterday's decision resolves the circuit split in favor of the state constitutional bans on affirmative-action policies in the public sphere. Other states are likely to follow Michigan’s lead in adopting such voter initiatives precluding affirmative action in public-sector admissions and hiring.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Fisher Phillips | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Fisher Phillips
Contact
more
less

Fisher Phillips on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.