Also known as: affirmative actions · positive discrimination
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A government program granting preferences to members of racial or ethnic minority groups in employment, contracting, or education. The program must be supported by a strong evidentiary basis of specific past discrimination by the governmental entity and must be narrowly tailored to remedy that discrimination.
The City of Franklin adopted a 25 percent set-aside for minority-owned construction firms after a disparity study showed underrepresentation. Apex Builders, a nonminority firm, lost bids on multiple projects and sued. The court applied strict scrutiny and held the ordinance unconstitutional because the study revealed no specific discriminatory acts or barriers in the city's bidding process.
The University of California medical school reserved sixteen spots for minority applicants. Allan Bakke, a white applicant with higher test scores, was rejected twice. The Supreme Court ruled that the rigid quota violated equal protection but that race could be considered as one factor in a holistic admissions process to achieve diversity.
The Medical School of the University of California at Davis opened in 1968 with an entering class of 50 students. In 1971 the size of the entering class was increased to 100 students, a level at which it remains. The first class contained three Asians but no blacks, no Mexican-Americans, and no American Indians. Over the next two years the faculty devised a special admissions program to increase the representation of disadvantaged students in each Medical School class. The special program consisted of a separate admissions system operating in coordination with the regular admissions process. Under the regular admissions procedure candidates whose overall undergraduate grade point averages fell below 2.5 on a scale of 4.0 were summarily rejected. About one out of six applicants was invited for a personal interview. Following the interviews each candidate was rated on a scale of 1 to 100 by his interviewers and four other members of the admissions committee. The ratings were added together to arrive at each candidate's benchmark score. Since five committee members rated each candidate in 1973 a perfect score was 500. In 1974 six members rated each candidate so that a perfect score was 600. The full committee then reviewed the file and scores of each applicant and made offers of admission on a rolling basis. The special admissions program operated with a separate committee a majority of whom were members of minority groups. Special candidates did not have to meet the 2.5 grade point average cutoff applied to regular applicants. The special committee continued to recommend special applicants until a number prescribed by faculty vote were admitted. While the overall class size was still 50 the prescribed number was 8. In 1973 and 1974 when the class size had doubled to 100 the prescribed number of special admissions also doubled to 16. From the year of the increase in class size through 1974 the special program resulted in the admission of 21 black students 30 Mexican-Americans and 12 Asians for a total of 63 minority students. Over the same period the regular admissions program produced 1 black 6 Mexican-Americans and 37 Asians for a total of 44 minority students. Although disadvantaged whites applied to the special program in large numbers none received an offer of admission through that process. Allan Bakke is a white male who applied to the Davis Medical School in both 1973 and 1974. Despite a strong benchmark score of 468 out of 500 Bakke was rejected. His total was 549 out of 600. Again Bakke's application was rejected. In both years applicants were admitted under the special program with grade point averages MCAT scores and benchmark scores significantly lower than Bakke's. After the second rejection Bakke filed the instant suit in the Superior Court of California. He sought mandatory injunctive and declaratory relief compelling his admission to the Medical School. He alleged that the Medical School's special admissions program operated to exclude him from the school on the basis of his race in violation of his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Art. I § 21 of the California Constitution and § 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. The trial court found that the special program operated as a racial quota because minority applicants in the special program were rated only against one another and 16 places in the class of 100 were reserved for them. The court refused to order Bakke's admission however holding that he had failed to carry his burden of proving that he would have been admitted but for the existence of the special program. The California court accepted the findings of the trial court with respect to the University's program. On this basis the court initially ordered a remand for the purpose of determining whether under the newly allocated burden of proof Bakke would have been admitted to either the 1973 or the 1974 entering class in the absence of the special admissions program. In its petition for rehearing below however the University conceded its inability to carry that burden. The California court thereupon amended its opinion to direct that the trial court enter judgment ordering Bakke's admission to the Medical School. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the important constitutional issue.
View caseThe University of Michigan Law School considered race as a plus factor in admissions to achieve a critical mass of minority students. Barbara Grutter, a white applicant, was rejected despite strong credentials. The Sixth Circuit upheld the policy, finding it narrowly tailored to the compelling interest in student body diversity.
Before us are two cases in which proposed defendant-intervenors were denied intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) and (b). The actions were brought against the University of Michigan to contest the use of an applicant's race as a factor in determining admission. The appeals come from separate district courts but present similar issues. We have therefore consolidated the two cases for purposes of this opinion. In Gratz v. Bollinger, the named plaintiffs are two white applicants who were denied admission to the College of Literature, Arts and Science. They allege that the College's admissions policy violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and § 1983, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d et seq. The plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief forbidding continuation of the alleged discriminatory admissions process, and admission to the College. The proposed intervenors are 17 African-American and Latino/a individuals who have applied or intend to apply to the University, and the Citizens for Affirmative Action's Preservation (CAAP), a nonprofit organization whose stated mission is to preserve opportunities in higher education for African-American and Latino/a students in Michigan. The district court denied their motion for intervention as of right, holding that the plaintiffs did not have a substantial interest in the litigation and that the University could adequately represent the proposed intervenors' interests. The district court also denied the proposed intervenors' alternative motion for permissive intervention. In Grutter v. Bollinger, the named plaintiff is a white woman challenging the admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School. She alleges that the race-conscious admissions policy utilized by the law school violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and § 1983, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d et seq. Grutter seeks compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief forbidding continuation of the alleged discriminatory admissions process, and admission to the law school. The proposed intervenors are 41 students and three pro-affirmative action coalitions. The individual proposed intervenors include 21 undergraduate students of different races who currently attend different undergraduate institutions, all of whom plan to apply to the law school for admission. Five black students who currently attend local high schools also plan to apply to the law school for admission. Twelve students of different races currently attend the law school. A paralegal and a Latino graduate student at the University of Texas at Austin intend to apply to the law school for admission. A black graduate student at the University of Michigan is a member of the Defend Affirmative Action Party. The district court denied the motion to intervene as of right on the basis that the intervenors failed to show that their interests would not be adequately represented by the University. The district court also denied the proposed intervenors' alternative motion for permissive intervention. The plaintiff opposed the motion to intervene, but the defendants, officials of the Law School and the University, did not oppose the motion. The appeals were argued on June 8, 1999, and decided on August 10, 1999.
View caseThe United States sued a trucking company for failing to hire minority drivers. Government data showed that minority applicants were hired at far lower rates than their share of the qualified labor pool. The Supreme Court held that the statistics alone could establish a prima facie case of discrimination supporting an affirmative action remedy.
The United States brought an action in a Tennessee federal court against T. I. M. E.-D. C., Inc., a common carrier of motor freight with nationwide operations. The complaint charged discriminatory hiring, assignment, and promotion policies against Negroes at its Nashville terminal. Almost three years later, the Government filed a second action in a Texas federal court against the company. It alleged a pattern and practice of employment discrimination against Negroes and Spanish-surnamed persons throughout the company's transportation system. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters was joined as a defendant. The two actions were consolidated for trial in the Northern District of Texas. The central claim in both lawsuits was that the company had engaged in a pattern or practice of discriminating against minorities in hiring so-called line drivers. Those Negroes and Spanish-surnamed persons who had been hired were given lower paying, less desirable jobs as servicemen or local city drivers. They were thereafter discriminated against with respect to promotions and transfers. The complaint also challenged the seniority system established by the collective-bargaining agreements between the employer and the union. The Government sought a general injunctive remedy and specific make-whole relief for all individual discriminatees. The cases went to trial. The District Court found that the Government had shown by a preponderance of the evidence that T. I. M. E.-D. C. and its predecessor companies were engaged in a plan and practice of discrimination in violation of Title VII. The court further found that the seniority system contained in the collective-bargaining contracts between the company and the union violated Title VII because it operated to impede the free transfer of minority groups into and within the company. With respect to individual relief the court accepted the Government's basic contention that the affected class of discriminatees included all Negro and Spanish-surnamed incumbent employees who had been hired to fill city operations or serviceman jobs at every terminal that had a line-driver operation. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed with the basic conclusions of the District Court. It held, however, that the relief ordered by the District Court was inadequate. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the District Court to hold the evidentiary hearings necessary to apply its remedial principles. The Supreme Court granted both the company's and the union's petitions for certiorari.
View caseCongress passed a statute allowing either house to veto an executive decision on deportation. Jagdish Rai Chadha challenged the veto after the House suspended his deportation. The Supreme Court struck down the legislative veto as an unconstitutional exercise of legislative power without bicameral passage and presentment.
In 1966 Jagdish Rai Chadha, an East Indian born in Kenya who held a British passport, was lawfully admitted to the United States on a nonimmigrant student visa that expired on June 30, 1972. In October 1973, the District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service informed Chadha that he had remained longer than permitted and was therefore deportable. Chadha conceded deportability but applied for suspension under section 244(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. On June 25, 1974, an Immigration Judge acting on behalf of the Attorney General suspended Chadha's deportation and adjusted his status to permanent resident after finding that he satisfied the statutory criteria of seven years' continuous presence, good moral character, and extreme hardship. A report of the suspension was transmitted to Congress as required by the Act. On December 16, 1975, the House of Representatives passed a resolution disapproving the suspension for Chadha and five other aliens on the ground that they did not meet the statutory requirements, particularly as to hardship. Pursuant to the House resolution, the Immigration Judge reopened the deportation proceedings. Chadha moved to terminate them on constitutional grounds, but the Immigration Judge ruled that he lacked authority to declare the resolution unconstitutional and ordered Chadha deported. Chadha appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which likewise held that it had no authority to pass on the constitutionality of the resolution and dismissed the appeal. Chadha then filed a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Immigration and Naturalization Service appeared and urged the court to hold the House resolution unconstitutional. After inviting briefs from the Senate and House as amici curiae, the Court of Appeals held the resolution unconstitutional because it was a legislative act that failed to satisfy the requirements of Article I, sections 1 and 7, and set aside the deportation order. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the consolidated cases to address the constitutional question.
View caseFederal narcotics agents searched Webster Bivens's apartment without a warrant and arrested him. Bivens sued the agents for damages under the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court recognized an implied cause of action for the constitutional violation even though Congress had not created a statutory remedy.
On the morning of November 26, 1965, agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics entered Webster Bivens's apartment in the Bronx. The agents broke open the door, handcuffed Bivens in front of his wife and young children, and thoroughly searched the apartment. They then transported Bivens to the federal courthouse in Brooklyn, where he was interrogated, booked, and subjected to a visual strip search. Several days later Bivens was released on his own recognizance, and he was never indicted or prosecuted for any offense. Bivens filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against the six agents in their individual capacities. His complaint sought fifteen thousand dollars in damages from each agent and alleged that the arrest and search were effected without a warrant, that unreasonable force was employed, and that the arrest was made without probable cause. Bivens claimed to have suffered great humiliation, embarrassment, and mental suffering as a result of the agents' conduct. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the judgment.
View caseStrict scrutiny applies to all racial classifications, including those intended to benefit minorities. The government must prove a compelling interest, typically remedying its own identified past discrimination, and must show that the program is narrowly tailored to that interest.
Supporting sources
No. A disparity study showing only statistical underrepresentation is insufficient. The government must produce a strong evidentiary basis of specific past discrimination in the relevant industry and jurisdiction.
Supporting sources
Yes. States are not required to maintain race-based preferences and may repeal them without violating equal protection.
Supporting sources