Schuette v. BAMN
Headline: Upheld Michigan voters’ ban on race-based preferences in public-university admissions, allowing the state constitution to bar consideration of race and shifting the dispute to state politics.
Holding: The Court held that the Federal Constitution does not allow courts to set aside a state constitutional amendment banning race-based preferences in public-university admissions, so Michigan’s voter-approved ban stands while other legal remedies remain available.
- Bars Michigan public universities from considering race in admissions.
- Shifts decisions on race-conscious admissions to voters and state politics.
- Forces colleges to pursue race-neutral alternatives to seek diversity.
Summary
Background
Michigan voters adopted Proposal 2 (now Article I, §26) to prohibit state and local government entities, including public colleges and universities, from granting preferences on the basis of race in public education, employment, and contracting. The amendment directly forbids the use of race in university admissions. The amendment was challenged by a coalition of students, faculty, advocacy groups, and applicants; a federal district court upheld the amendment, but the Sixth Circuit reversed, relying on a prior line of cases that protect minorities’ access to the political process.
Reasoning
The Court’s majority (Justice Kennedy) asked whether the Federal Constitution allows courts to set aside a state law that commits the question of race-based preferences to the voters. The majority concluded there is no constitutional basis for invalidating a voter-approved ban of this type, and that the Sixth Circuit had wrongly extended earlier precedents (Hunter and Seattle) that addressed different facts involving state action that directly aggravated racial injury. The majority warned against courts assessing which policies “serve the interest of” racial groups. Concurring opinions offered different rationales: Justice Scalia would have overruled the political-process doctrine; Justice Breyer agreed the amendment was constitutional as applied to race-conscious programs meant only to obtain educational diversity benefits.
Real world impact
The decision leaves Michigan’s voter-approved ban in place, preventing public universities in Michigan from considering race in admissions and forcing them to pursue race-neutral alternatives to achieve diversity. It shifts responsibility for choosing whether race-conscious admissions may be used to voters and state politics. The ruling does not decide the general constitutionality of all race-conscious admissions programs and several Justices emphasized that context and remedial programs present different questions.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Sotomayor dissented, arguing the amendment reconfigured Michigan’s political process in a way that uniquely burdened racial minorities and so should be invalid under the political-process doctrine; other concurrences agreed with the judgment for different legal reasons.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?