CHAPTER FivE • Civil RigHTs 109
interest. In effect, the Court’s opinion in Adarand means that an
affirmative action program cannot make use of quotas or pref-
erences for unqualified persons. In addition, once the program
has succeeded in achieving the purpose it was tailored to meet,
the program must be changed or dropped.
In 2003, in two cases involving the University of Michigan,
the Supreme Court indicated that limited affirmative action
programs continued to be acceptable and that diversity was a
legitimate goal. The Court struck down the affirmative action
plan used for undergraduate admissions at the university, which
automatically awarded a substantial number of points to appli-
cants based on minority status.^14 At the same time, in Grutter
v. Bollinger, it approved the admissions plan used by the law
school, which took race into consideration as part of a com-
plete examination of each applicant’s background.^15The End of Affirmative Action?
Despite the position taken by the Supreme Court in Grutter v.
Bollinger, the University of Michigan Law School case, affirma-
tive action is subject to serious threats. A variety of states have
banned all state-sponsored affirmative action programs. These
include Michigan, which banned such programs through a bal-
lot initiative in 2006. Others include Arizona, California, Florida,
Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Washington. Voters in Colorado
rejected such a measure in 2008, however, and in 2011 and
2012 a federal appeals court overturned the Michigan ban.^16Additional Restrictions. In 2007, the Supreme Court tight-
ened the guidelines for permissible affirmative action programs.
In rejecting school integration plans in Seattle, Washington,
and Louisville, Kentucky, the Court found that race could not be
used as a “tiebreaker” when granting admission to a school.^17Fisher v. University of Texas. In June 2013, the Supreme
Court decided the most recent affirmative action case, Fisher v.
University of Texas. Many observers thought that the Supreme
Court would use this case to overturn Grutter v. Bollinger and
administer a fatal blow to state-sponsored affirmative action. As it turned out, however,
the Court sent the case back to the federal appeals court with instructions to decide it
under existing law. Affirmative action could be used for purposes of diversity, but only
when no alternative way of reaching that goal is available.^18 The ruling did not affect affir-
mative action programs at privates schools and colleges.Abigail Fisher is the plaintiff in the key case
Fisher v. University of Texas. In 2013, the United States
Supreme Court was tasked with ruling on whether
the university’s consideration of race in admissions is
constitutional. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images)- Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003).
- 539 U.S. 306 (2003).
- Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. University of Michigan, 701 F.3d 466 (2012).
- Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007).
- U.S. (2013).
Copyright 2014 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.