What were the Bollinger decisions?

The Bollinger decisions are a pair of Supreme Court cases from June 23, 2003, that addressed affirmative action. The cases are Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger . In Gratz v. Bollinger , the Court ruled that the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions policy, which awarded points to minority candidates, violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. In Grutter v. Bollinger , the Court held that the University of Michigan Law School's admissions policy, which considered race as one factor among many, did not violate the equal protection clause because it was "narrowly tailored."

Which university was involved in the Bollinger cases?

The University of Michigan was involved in the Bollinger cases. These cases include Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger , which addressed affirmative action policies. In Gratz v. Bollinger , the Supreme Court ruled that the university's undergraduate admissions policy violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, in Grutter v. Bollinger , the Court found that the University of Michigan Law School's admissions policy did not violate the equal protection clause because it used race in a narrowly tailored manner.

What central issue did the Bollinger cases address?

The central issue in the Bollinger decisions was affirmative action in university admissions. Specifically, the Supreme Court addressed whether the University of Michigan's undergraduate and law school admissions policies violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court ruled that the undergraduate policy, which awarded points based on race, was unconstitutional, while the law school's more individualized approach was permissible but this has since been challenged and changed. These cases revolved around the legality and limits of affirmative action in higher education.

Who was Lee Bollinger, and what was his role in these cases?

The Bollinger decisions are a pair of Supreme Court cases from 2003 that addressed affirmative action. These cases are Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger . Lee Bollinger was the president of the University of Michigan when these cases were filed, and the cases were named after him in his official capacity. Gratz v. Bollinger challenged the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions policy, while Grutter v. Bollinger challenged the Law School's admissions policy. The Supreme Court ruled that the undergraduate policy was unconstitutional but upheld the Law School's policy because it was more narrowly tailored.

How did the Supreme Court rule in the Bollinger cases?

In the 2003 Bollinger decisions, the Supreme Court addressed affirmative action policies at the University of Michigan. In Gratz v. Bollinger , the Court ruled (6–3) that the university's undergraduate admissions policy, which automatically awarded points based on race, violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause because it was not "narrowly tailored" and too closely resembled racial quotas. However, in Grutter v. Bollinger , the Court ruled (5–4) that the law school's admissions policy did not violate the equal protection clause or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The law school's policy was deemed "narrowly tailored" because it used race as only a "plus" in a highly individualized review process.

How did the Bollinger decisions affect affirmative action policies in the United States?

The Bollinger decisions refer to two Supreme Court cases in 2003 that addressed affirmative action policies. In Gratz v. Bollinger , the Court found that the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions policy, which awarded points based on race, was unconstitutional. However, in Grutter v. Bollinger , the Court upheld the law school's admission policy, which considered race as one factor among many, deeming it constitutional because it was "narrowly tailored". These decisions affirmed affirmative action's constitutionality but disallowed race as the predominant factor in admissions. In 2023, the Supreme Court effectively ended race-based affirmative action in college admissions, as the Court held that the admissions programs of Harvard and the University of North Carolina violated the equal protection clause.

Bollinger decisions

Introduction References & Edit History Quick Facts & Related Topics

Images & Videos

A person ascends the steps of the west facade of the United States Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C., with its tall columns and a round fountain in the foreground.

How Sandra Day O'Connor became the first woman on the U.S. Supreme Court

Quick Facts

Location:: United States

Major Events:: Gratz v. Bollinger; Grutter v. Bollinger

See all related content

U.S. Supreme Court building The west facade of the U.S. Supreme Court building, Washington, D.C.

Bollinger decisions

law cases

Written by

Brian Duignan

Fact-checked by

Britannica Editors

History

Top Questions

What were the Bollinger decisions?
The Bollinger decisions are a pair of Supreme Court cases from June 23, 2003, that addressed affirmative action. The cases are Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger.

In Gratz v. Bollinger, the Court ruled that the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions policy, which awarded points to minority candidates, violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. In Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court held that the University of Michigan Law School's admissions policy, which considered race as one factor among many, did not violate the equal protection clause because it was "narrowly tailored."
1 Britannica Source
1. Bollinger decisions
Created from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.
Which university was involved in the Bollinger cases?
The University of Michigan was involved in the Bollinger cases. These cases include Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger, which addressed affirmative action policies. In Gratz v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court ruled that the university's undergraduate admissions policy violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, in Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court found that the University of Michigan Law School's admissions policy did not violate the equal protection clause because it used race in a narrowly tailored manner.
1 Britannica Source
1. Bollinger decisions
Created from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.
What central issue did the Bollinger cases address?
The central issue in the Bollinger decisions was affirmative action in university admissions. Specifically, the Supreme Court addressed whether the University of Michigan's undergraduate and law school admissions policies violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court ruled that the undergraduate policy, which awarded points based on race, was unconstitutional, while the law school's more individualized approach was permissible but this has since been challenged and changed. These cases revolved around the legality and limits of affirmative action in higher education.
3 Britannica Sources
Created from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.
Who was Lee Bollinger, and what was his role in these cases?
The Bollinger decisions are a pair of Supreme Court cases from 2003 that addressed affirmative action. These cases are Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger. Lee Bollinger was the president of the University of Michigan when these cases were filed, and the cases were named after him in his official capacity.

Gratz v. Bollinger challenged the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions policy, while Grutter v. Bollinger challenged the Law School's admissions policy. The Supreme Court ruled that the undergraduate policy was unconstitutional but upheld the Law School's policy because it was more narrowly tailored.
1 Britannica Source
1. Bollinger decisions
Created from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.
How did the Supreme Court rule in the Bollinger cases?
In the 2003 Bollinger decisions, the Supreme Court addressed affirmative action policies at the University of Michigan. In Gratz v. Bollinger, the Court ruled (6–3) that the university's undergraduate admissions policy, which automatically awarded points based on race, violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause because it was not "narrowly tailored" and too closely resembled racial quotas.

However, in Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court ruled (5–4) that the law school's admissions policy did not violate the equal protection clause or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The law school's policy was deemed "narrowly tailored" because it used race as only a "plus" in a highly individualized review process.
1 Britannica Source
1. Bollinger decisions
Created from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.
How did the Bollinger decisions affect affirmative action policies in the United States?
The Bollinger decisions refer to two Supreme Court cases in 2003 that addressed affirmative action policies. In Gratz v. Bollinger, the Court found that the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions policy, which awarded points based on race, was unconstitutional. However, in Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court upheld the law school's admission policy, which considered race as one factor among many, deeming it constitutional because it was "narrowly tailored".

These decisions affirmed affirmative action's constitutionality but disallowed race as the predominant factor in admissions. In 2023, the Supreme Court effectively ended race-based affirmative action in college admissions, as the Court held that the admissions programs of Harvard and the University of North Carolina violated the equal protection clause.
2 Britannica Sources
1. affirmative action
2. Bollinger decisions
Created from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.

Bollinger decisions, pair of cases addressing the issue of affirmative action in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 23, 2003, that the undergraduate admissions policy of the University of Michigan violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Gratz v. Bollinger) and that the admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School did not (Grutter v. Bollinger).

In 1995 and 1997, respectively, Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, both of whom were white, were denied admission to the University of Michigan’s School of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LSA) despite being qualified or well-qualified according to the university’s academic standards. The two filed a class-action suit alleging racial discrimination in violation of the equal protection clause and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (1964), which assures nondiscrimination in the distribution of funds under federally assisted programs. The admissions policy then used by the LSA, which was aimed at achieving racial diversity within the student body, automatically awarded points to candidates whose race was African American, Hispanic, or Native American. In Gratz v. Bollinger, the court ruled by a 6–3 majority that the LSA’s use of race or ethnicity in its admissions policy was not “narrowly tailored” and thus too closely approximated the racial quotas that the court had determined were inconsistent with the equal protection clause in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978); see Bakke decision. The court’s opinion in Gratz was written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

In 1997 Barbara Grutter, who was white, was denied admission to the University of Michigan Law School despite being well-qualified according to the school’s academic standards; she then filed suit alleging violation of the equal protection clause and Title VI. The admissions policy then used by the school took the race of the candidate into account but did not grant an automatic and significant advantage to certain candidates on the basis of race or ethnicity. In Grutter v. Bollinger, the court ruled by a 5–4 majority that the school’s admissions policy, unlike that of the LSA, did not violate the equal protection clause or Title VI because it used race in a “narrowly tailored” and “holistic” manner within a system of highly individualized interviews, treating race or ethnicity as merely a “‘plus’ in a particular applicant’s file,” as recommended by Justice Lewis F. Powell in his concurring opinion in Bakke. The court’s opinion in Grutter was written by Sandra Day O’Connor.

By clicking “Sign Up”, you consent to the Britannica Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Washington Monument. Washington Monument and fireworks, Washington DC. The Monument was built as an obelisk near the west end of the National Mall to commemorate the first U.S. president, General George Washington.

Britannica Quiz

All-American History Quiz

The admissions policy approved in Grutter became illegal in Michigan in 2006, after voters approved a state constitutional amendment banning discrimination or preferential treatment “on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” The Supreme Court upheld the amendment as it applied to school admissions policies in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (2014).

In 2022 the Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases during its October 2022 term involving a challenge to Grutter v. Bollinger: Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina. In both cases the plaintiff argued that the Grutter Court’s ruling was “grievously wrong” and should be overturned because it permitted intentional racial discrimination in college and university admissions. The plaintiff also asked the Court to find that the admissions policy of Harvard violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (which prohibits racial discrimination by institutions that receive federal funding) and that the policy of the University of North Carolina (UNC) violated both Title VI and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In its decision, the Court’s conservative majority held (6–3) that the admissions policies of both Harvard and UNC violated the equal protection clause.

Brian Duignan

Bollinger decisions

Thank you for signing up!