Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

Affirmative action and anti-discrimination lawsuits

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

BP-Initials-UPDATED.png On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court reversed lower court decisions in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, effectively ending the use of affirmative action in college admissions. This article does not receive scheduled updates. If you have any questions or comments, contact us.

Affirmative action
Civil Liberties Policy Logo.png
Affirmative action
Affirmative action by state
Affirmative action and anti-discrimination laws
Affirmative action and anti-discrimination lawsuits
Civil Rights Act of 1866
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Consideration of race in college admissions
Public Policy Logo-one line.png

Affirmative action refers to a complex set of policies adopted by governments and institutions to take proactive measures to increase the proportion of historically disadvantaged minority groups. These measures have taken many different forms, including strict quotas, extra outreach efforts, and student financial aid specifically for minorities. In the decades since it was first instituted, affirmative action has often taken the form of racial preferences, and the two terms are often used interchangeably.

Originally focused on racial minorities, affirmative action policies were later expanded to include preferences for women as well. Affirmative action policies can most often be found in government employment. Before June 2023, affirmative action polices were often used in university admissions by universities. The Supreme Court significantly limited the consideration of race in university admissions in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, decided on June 19, 2023. The court explicitly exempted national service academies in its decision.[1]

These admissions policies, in particular, had come under scrutiny for their reliance on racial preferences to achieve diversity. Polls have shown that while there is general support for affirmative action, support drops considerably when the question mentions preferences.

Since affirmative action policies were first instituted in the 1960s, federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court, have heard a number of cases relating to the legality of these policies. The courts have issued a series of rulings that have come to shape the interpretation and implementation of affirmative action policies nationwide.

Education cases

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 1978

The first major legal challenge to affirmative action policies was brought in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. Allan Bakke, a white male, brought suit against the University of California (UC) for twice denying him entrance to its medical school, claiming he was excluded on the basis of race. The university reserved 16 of 100 spots for minority applicants and had admitted minorities with lower qualifications than Bakke. The United States Supreme Court found that universities could consider race as one factor to achieve a diverse student body, but it struck down the strict quotas UC had utilized as discriminatory toward white applicants. It also noted that remedying past discrimination was not a legitimate goal of affirmative action in university admissions, and that diversity was the only justifiable use of affirmative action. The decision broadly expanded and legitimized affirmative action while attempting to minimize opposition to perceived injustice against white students.[2][3][4][5]

Hopwood v. University of Texas Law School, 1996

Although strict quotas were no longer used, universities continued to consider race in the form of preferences for minority candidates. Cheryl Hopwood and three other white students challenged the use of racial preferences in admissions in Hopwood v. Texas after they were rejected from the University of Texas Law School. The 5th U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Hopwood, rendering the 1978 Bakke decision invalid by ruling that diversity was actually "not recognized as a compelling state interest" and suspending the affirmative action program of the University of Texas. The U.S. Supreme Court let the ruling stand, and soon after, all public universities in Texas switched to race-blind admissions. The ruling also affected affirmative action admissions in Louisiana and Mississippi.[2][6]

Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003

Lee Bollinger

Two cases against the University of Michigan were heard in conjunction by the Supreme Court: Gratz v. Bollinger against the university's undergraduate admissions, and Grutter v. Bollinger against the University of Michigan Law School. Jennifer Gratz and Barbara Grutter were both white students who had been rejected from the University of Michigan, Gratz from the undergraduate program and Grutter from the law school. Lee Bollinger, president of university at the time, served as the defendant, arguing that the programs' admission policies served the legitimate purpose of campus diversity. The court struck down the "mechanical" points system of the undergraduate school, which awarded 20 extra points—one-fifth of the total needed for admission—to applicants of a minority race, ruling that the system was not "narrowly tailored" and violated the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the court upheld the policy of the law school, stating that the consideration of race in its admissions was "highly individualized" and consistent with the ruling in Bakke. The Grutter decision invalidated the finding of the 5th U.S. Court of Appeals in Hopwood.[2][7][8]

Parents v. Seattle and Meredith v. Jefferson, 2006

Parents v. Seattle and Meredith v. Jefferson, two cases that were heard in conjunction, challenged for the first time the consideration of race in public school assignments. Both Seattle School District Number 1 and Jefferson County Public Schools allowed students to apply to any school in the district. When demand for a particular school exceeded available space, the student's race was considered along with other factors to determine enrollment. Lower courts had applied the precedents set in Grutter and Gratz to determine if the schools' systems served a "compelling government interest" and were "narrowly tailored" to achieve that interest. They found that the policies were lawful and consistent with previous interpretations of the law by the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the decision in Grutter v. Bollinger did not apply to high schools and that the programs were not narrowly tailored. The court found that both districts' plans were "actually targeted toward demographic goals and not toward any demonstrable educational benefit from racial diversity." The ruling restricted the use of affirmative action in public schools.[2][9][10][11]

Fisher v. University of Texas, 2013

University of Texas at Austin

After the Hopwood decision, the University of Texas (UT) adopted a policy of automatically admitting high school students who graduated in the top 10 percent of their class. It later revised this policy to allow the consideration of race for those who were not automatically admitted. After Abigail N. Fisher, a white female, was denied admission to UT-Austin, she challenged the university's consideration of race as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment in Fisher v. University of Texas. In its ruling, the Supreme Court found faults in the decision by the 5th U.S. Court of Appeals. The court stated that affirmative actions cases should be reviewed under the Fourteenth Amendment according to "a standard of strict scrutiny," which the 5th U.S. Court of Appeals did not do. The opinion went on to say that universities must be able to show that "available, workable race-neutral alternatives do not suffice." The case was sent back to the 5th U.S. Court of Appeals for further review, where UT-Austin's admissions policy was ultimately upheld. However, the ruling placed the burden on universities to prove that racial diversity could not be achieved via any other method when they utilize racial preferences.[2][12]

The Supreme Court agreed to rehear the case in the October 2015 term, and began hearing oral arguments on December 8, 2015. The case has the potential to limit or eliminate affirmative action in higher education.

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, 2023

See also: Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina

In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, two cases that were heard in combination, plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to overturn the precedent established in Grutter v. Bollinger that "student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions." [13] According to its website, Students for Fair Admission (SFFA) described its mission as: "to support and participate in litigation that will restore the original principles of our nation’s civil rights movement: A student’s race and ethnicity should not be factors that either harm or help that student to gain admission to a competitive university."[14]

In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, significantly limiting the consideration of race in college admissions. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that "the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race. Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin."[1]

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sotomayor wrote that in ruling in favor of the plaintiffs "the Court cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter. The Court subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection by further entrenching racial inequality in education, the very foundation of our democratic government and pluralistic society."[1]

In deciding the case, the court reversed the decisions of lower federal courts that upheld both Harvard and the University of North Carolina's admission standards. According to Susan Howe of SCOTUS Blog, in doing so, the court "severely limited, if not effectively ended, the use of affirmative action in college admissions" and "effectively, though not explicitly, overruled its 2003" decision in Grutter. [15] The only institutions of higher education explicitly exempted from the ruling were the nation's military academies.[16]

Employment cases

United Steelworkers v. Weber, 1979

Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp, had, as part of a collective agreement with the United Steelworkers of America, implemented an affirmative action program within their training program; half the positions in the program were reserved for black employees, even though the company had more white employees. Brian Weber, a white employee, applied for the program and was passed over for a position as none were available for him. Weber sued the company in 1974, arguing this was illegal racial discrimination that violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[17][18]

The United States Supreme Court found in favor of United Steelworkers and held that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not prohibit employers from favoring women and minorities and that it did not prohibit all forms of affirmative action programs. The court found that, since the training program offered by the Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp. and United Steelworkers of America sought to eliminate the pattern of racial segregation and discrimination in employment but did not expressly prohibit white employees from advancing in the company, it was consistent with the intent of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[17][18]

Fullilove v. Klutznick, 1980

Passed by Congress and enacted in 1977, the Public Works Employment Act required state and local governments receiving federal funds for public works projects to allocate 10 percent of those funds for services and supplies provided by businesses owned by racial minorities. A group of contractors led by H. Earl Fullilove filed suit in federal court, arguing that the law caused them economic harm in violation of Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Secretary of Commerce at the time, Philip M. Klutznick, acted as the defendant.[19][20]

The United States Supreme Court ruled in a plurality opinion, rather than majority opinion, that the set-aside of federal funds did not violate the Constitution. It found that Congress' ability to establish such a program fell under the Spending Power and the Commerce Clause. It also stated that the way states and localities used those funds was not an inflexible mandate and that such a practice was meant to ensure the remediation of past discrimination. In this context, therefore, Congress "did not have to act 'in a wholly "color-blind" fashion.'" This ruling was overturned in 1995 by Adarand Constructors v. Peña.[19][20]

Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 1986

In the 1980s, the contract between the school board of Jackson, Michigan and the teachers' union (a) protected teachers with the most seniority from layoffs and (b) prevented the percentage of teachers laid off who were minorities from being greater than the percentage of minorities employed under the contract. During layoffs over subsequent years, some nonminority teachers were laid off, while minority teachers with less seniority were kept on. Wendy Wygant, a nonminority teacher who was laid off, filed suit against the board with the allegation that such layoffs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan found in favor of the board, upholding the contract on the grounds that the board's racial preferences "remedied discrimination by providing 'role models' for minority students." On appeal, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.[21][22]

The United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in 1985. In its opinion issued May 19, 1986, the court struck down the decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that the board laid off Wygant for reasons related to her race and in doing so, violated the Equal Protection Clause. The court found that the school board's layoff policy did not meet the two standards of strict scrutiny: (1) its justification for the policy (that "the percentage of minority students exceeded the percentage of minority teachers") did not serve a compelling state interest, and (2) the policy was not narrowly tailored (applied in such a way to fulfill only very specific goals) because it did not correctly remedy historical discrimination: the loss of a job due to discrimination was more harmful than denial of a job due to discrimination, the court said.[21][22]

Adarand Constructors v. Peña, 1995

United States Supreme Court building

In 1989, the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) awarded a Colorado highway contract to Mountain Gravel and Construction Company. Mountain Gravel subcontracted, with the lowest bid coming from Adarand Constructors. Another company, Gonzales Construction, submitted a higher bid. However, Gonzales Construction was certified by the Small Business Administration as a disadvantaged business (a business owned by racial or ethnic minority groups or women), and so Mountain Gravel gave Gonzales Construction the contract due to the financial incentives from the DOT for using a disadvantaged business. Adarand filed suit in federal court, arguing that the subcontracting incentives were unconstitutional.[23]

The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Anarand. According to the Oyez Project, the court ruled that "presumption of disadvantage based on race alone, and consequent allocation of favored treatment, [is] a discriminatory practice that violates the equal protection principle embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment." The court also ruled, however, that compensation programs based on disadvantage are legal.[23]

Ricci v. DeStefano, 2009

The New Haven Fire Department used written exams as part of its process to fill vacant managerial positions, with the exams accounting for 60 percent of the overall assessment of a candidate. City officials found that the pass rate for black candidates was approximately half the rate of white candidates. Under the assessment rules, no black candidate who applied in 2003 could have been promoted. The New Haven Civil Service Board, considering the disparate impact these results would have on employment, decided not to certify any of the candidates that applied in 2003. Frank Ricci and other firefighters who had scored well enough on the exam to be promoted had they been certified brought suit against the department, alleging that their rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment had been violated.[24][25]

The United States Supreme Court found the case in favor of Ricci, ruling that before taking an action of intentional discrimination in order to prevent disparate impact, an employer must be able to prove that it will be subject to disparate impact liability. The court found that the city had failed to do so in discarding exam results that would have resulted in promoting no black candidates in the fire department to managerial positions, as the exams were job-related, consistent with business necessity, and there was no evidence that an equally-valid, less-discriminatory alternative was available.[24][25]

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Affirmative action lawsuit. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

Affirmative action and anti-discrimination lawsuits - Google News

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Supreme Court of the United States, "Students for Fair Admission, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard CollegeStudents for Fair Admission, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College," accessed June 29, 2023
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Infoplease, "Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones," accessed February 10, 2015
  3. ↑ Miller Center of Public Affairs, "Affirmative Action: Race or Class?" accessed February 10, 2015
  4. ↑ Infoplease, "Regents of the University of California v. Bakke," accessed February 11, 2015
  5. ↑ Oyez, "Regents of the University of California v. Bakke," accessed February 11, 2015
  6. ↑ The Center for Individual Rights, "Hopwood v. Texas," accessed February 11, 2015
  7. ↑ Oyez, "Gratz v. Bollinger," accessed February 11, 2015
  8. ↑ FindLaw, "GRUTTER v. BOLLINGER et al.," accessed February 11, 2015
  9. ↑ Justia, "Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1," accessed February 11, 2015
  10. ↑ Oyez, "Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education," accessed February 11, 2015
  11. ↑ Oyez, "Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1," accessed February 11, 2015
  12. ↑ Oyez, "Fisher v. University of Texas," accessed February 11, 2015
  13. ↑ Justia, "Grutter v. Bollinger," accessed June 29, 2023
  14. ↑ Students for Fair Admission, "About," accessed June 29, 2023
  15. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action programs in college admissions," accessed June 29, 2023
  16. ↑ AP News, "Divided Supreme Court outlaws affirmative action in college admissions, says race can’t be used," accessed June 29, 2023
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 Justia, "Steelworkers v. Weber 443 U.S. 193 (1979)," accessed July 17, 2015
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 Oyez, "UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA v. WEBER," accessed July 17, 2015
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Oyez, "Fullilove v. Klutznick," accessed December 18, 2015
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 Legal Information Institute, "Fullilove v. Klutznick," accessed December 18, 2015
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 Oyez "Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education," accessed December 21, 2015
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 FindLaw, "WYGANT v. JACKSON BOARD OF EDUCATION," accessed December 21, 2015
  23. ↑ 23.0 23.1 Oyez, "Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña," accessed November 17, 2015
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 Oyez, "RICCI v. DESTEFANO," accessed July 17, 2015
  25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 SupremeCourt.gov, "RICCI ET AL. v. DESTEFANO ET AL.," accessed July 17, 2015
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Affirmative_action_and_anti-discrimination_lawsuits&oldid=9180996"