Grutter v. Bollinger
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority in a 5-4 decision and joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, ruled that the University of Michigan Law School had a compelling interest in promoting class diversity. The court held that a race-conscious admissions process that may favor "underrepresented minority groups," but that also took into account many other factors evaluated on an individual basis for every applicant, did not amount to a quota system that would have been unconstitutional under Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.
Wikipage disambiguates
LawsApplied
primaryTopic
Grutter v. Bollinger
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), was a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority in a 5-4 decision and joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, ruled that the University of Michigan Law School had a compelling interest in promoting class diversity. The court held that a race-conscious admissions process that may favor "underrepresented minority groups," but that also took into account many other factors evaluated on an individual basis for every applicant, did not amount to a quota system that would have been unconstitutional under Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.
has abstract
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. ...... mas also dissented separately.
@en
格鲁特诉布林格案 (Grutter v. Bollinger ...... 官安东宁·斯卡利亚和克拉伦斯·托马斯都分别表示反对此次判决。
@zh
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
Wikipage page ID
Wikipage revision ID
719,584,275
ArgueDate
ArgueYear
case
Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306
citation
Concurrence
Concurrence/Dissent
DecideDate
DecideYear
Dissent
findlaw
Holding
University of Michigan Law Sch ...... late the Fourteenth Amendment.
JoinConcurrence
JoinConcurrence/Dissent
JoinDissent
Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas
JoinMajority
Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Litigants
Grutter v. Bollinger
majority
other source
Prior
SCOTUS
Subsequent
Rehearing denied, 539 U.S. 982
subject
comment
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. ...... ersity of California v. Bakke.
@en
格鲁特诉布林格案 (Grutter v. Bollinger ...... 官安东宁·斯卡利亚和克拉伦斯·托马斯都分别表示反对此次判决。
@zh
label
Grutter v. Bollinger
@en
格鲁特诉布林格案
@zh
wasDerivedFrom
isPrimaryTopicOf
name
Barbara Grutter, Petitioner v. Lee Bollinger, et al.
@en