Schuette v. Coal. to Defend Affirmative Action

Background

In 2006 Michigan voters approved Proposal 2, which became Article I, §26 of the State Constitution and broadly bars government entities from granting preferences based on race, including in public-university admissions. Plaintiffs (including a coalition called BAMN, students, faculty, and prospective applicants) sued, and the defendants included the Governor and the universities’ governing boards. The District Court upheld the amendment, the Sixth Circuit reversed en banc relying on earlier cases about changing political decisionmaking, and the Supreme Court agreed to review the question.

Reasoning

The main question was whether voters may lawfully prohibit race-conscious admissions or whether such a voter action improperly alters the political process in a way that burdens minorities. The majority rejected a broad reading of the earlier political-process cases (Mulkey, Hunter, Seattle) and said those cases involved specific injuries or state encouragement of discrimination that do not exist here. The Court concluded that Michigan’s amendment does not automatically violate the federal Equal Protection Clause and that courts should not use an expansive political-process rule to disempower voters from choosing to end race-based preferences.

Real world impact

The ruling leaves in place Michigan’s ban on considering race in public-university admissions and shifts the governance of that question to voters and state law rather than to the universities or to federal courts. Public universities, applicants, and governing boards in Michigan are directly affected; the decision means race cannot legally be used in admissions under §26 unless state law changes. This decision rests on the facts and framework presented in this case and could be limited to similar circumstances.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices wrote separately. Justice Breyer concurred in the judgment with narrower reasoning; Justice Scalia concurred in the judgment on other grounds. Justice Sotomayor (joined by Justice Ginsburg) dissented, arguing §26 restructures the political process to the unique disadvantage of racial minorities and should be subject to strict scrutiny.