Grutter v. Bollinger (2003): When two individuals were not accepted into the University of Michigan, they set out to sue the school; the two individuals, Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, claimed that their rejections were due to the university’s racial preference policies. Committed to having a diverse student body, the university employed various methods of enhancing the admissions opportunities for applicants form under=represented groups, specifically African Americans, Hispanics, and Native americans. One hundred points were needed to be admitted, and to promote a diverse student boyd, the university gave 20 points automatically to every applicant from the designated underrepresented groups. The law school wanted a “critical mass” of minority students so they would not be isolated or feel like spokesperson for their races…the law school argued that such a critical mass was necessary to attain the education benefits of a diverse student body. The Court, by a 6-3 vote, found that the university’s admissions policies violated the equal protection clause. The justices ruled that the automatic distribution of 20 points, or one-fifth of those necessary for admission, to every underrepresented minority applicant, solely because of race, was not narrowly tailored to achieve the goal of educational diversity. The Court found that the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the Law School’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body…The judgment of the Court of appeals for the Sixth circuit, accordingly, was affirmed.
The court held that educational diversity constitutes a compelling state interest and that affirmative action programs, if properly tailored, are a constitutionally acceptable means of achieving the state’s goals. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke: Allan Bakke, a white male, graduated with honors in engineering from the University of Minnesota and was a Vietnam War veteran. Bakke applied for admission into the medical school at Davis. He was rejected and applied again…to be rejected again. Bakke sued for admission, claiming the the university’s dual admission program violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Bakke won admission to the medical school at Davis. The justices were sharply divided not only in their views of affirmative action programs but also over the legal grounds on which to apply the Court’s ruling. The Bakke decision struck down the use of racial quotas and found fault with programs reserved exclusively for minority individual, but the decision permitted less extreme forms of affirmative action. Question #2 Several local laws passed by communities in Colorado such as Boulder, Aspen, and Denver made sexual orientation an impermissible ground upon which to discriminate. In effect, the local laws gave sexual orientation the same status as race, sex, and other protected categories. To reverse this trend and remove the possibility of future legislation, a significant number of citizens signed a petition to place a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot which would prevent cities from doing this type of thing in the future. Richard G. Evans, a gay employee in the office of the mayor of Denver, other citizens, and several Colorado local governments sued Governor Roy Romer and the state of Colorado, claiming that the new amendment was in violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.
The Court concluded that Amendment 2 classifies homosexuals not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else. This Colorado cannot do. A state cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws. Amendment 2 violated the equal Protection Clause, and the judgement of the Supreme Court of Colorado was affirmed. Laws that single out homosexuals for discriminatory treatment are not protected by the Constitution and are in face a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause there-within. Question #3 Classifications based on gender fit somewhere between reasonable (Rational Basis) and inherently suspect (Strict Scrutiny): gender classifications must bear a substantial relationship to an important legislative purpose (and is sometimes called ‘medium scrutiny’). One of the most famous cases involving this is Reed v. Reed. A case in which a married couple divorced, and shortly after their son died leaving a small estate with no will. The probate judge appointed the father the administrator of the estate, in agreement with Idaho Law which explicitly gives priority in assigning an administrator to males. sally Reed challenged this law as it was a violation of the 14th Amendment. The Court believe that it was a violation of the 14th Amendment, and thus Sally Reed won. The Court held that any arbitrary sex-based classification violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court also established a rational basis test, which held that laws based on gender need to be reasonable, and have a rational relationship to a state objective. Question #5 Minority set-asides attempt to enhance the prospects of disadvantaged groups by granting them special considerations in the awarding of government contract and benefits. Set-asides are based on the idea that just eliminating discrimination in the granting of government contracts will not result in more business for minority-owned firms.
The Public Works of Employment Act of 1977 sparked the landmark case of Fullilove v. Klutznick. A group of contractors attacked the constitutionality of the statute, claiming economic injury due to its enforcement. The Court, upheld the validity of the law as a remedial action to correct a history of discrimination in government contracting. Another example is the City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. where Richmond’s city council adopted the Minority Utilization Plan. This required businesses contracting with eh city to award 30 percent of the dollar amount of the contract to minority owned subcontractors. The Supreme Court held that the Richmond minority set-aside program violated the Constitution. This case also sparked the ‘strict scrutiny’ test. Question #6 The equal protection clause specifically prohibits discrimination by any state. The Supreme Court has interpreted this concept to include a wide array of state actions – statues, their enforcement and administration, and the actions of state officials. The states are prohibited from engaging in ‘invidious’ discrimination either directly or indirectly. Because it is restricted to the states, the equal protection clause does not prohibit the federal government from engaging in discrimination. In Bolling v. Sharpe the Court faced the issue of racial segregation in Washington DC., public schools. The equal protection clause was not applicable there because it is not considered a state. Justice Warren cautioned that the due process clause and the equal protection clause could not be used interchangeably, the Court consistently has ruled that both provision stand for the same general principles. Any discriminatory action by a state found to be in violation of the equal protection clause would also be a violation of the 5th Amendment if engaged in by the federal government.
Question #8 Justice Douglas names several Amendments within the Constitution that he believes showcase the right to privacy. The right of association containing within the 1st Amendment. The prohibition against the quartering of soldiers ‘in any house’ in time of peace without the consent of the owner, a penumbra within the 3rd Amendment. The 4th Amendment right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. The 5th Amendment’s right to protect oneself from self-incrimination. The 9th Amendment right to protect the other rights within other Amendments. Douglas claimed that even though the Constitution does not specifically cite the right of privacy, the clauses within the document create areas of which citizens do have the right of privacy. Just Douglas would not cite the 14th Amendment as he did not want to give reference to the decision in the Lochner case and the substantive due process doctrine that he explicitly rejected. Louis Brandeis claimed that the 4th and 5th Amendments prohibit invasions of privacy. Brandeis claimed that the founding fathers intended to give men the right to be let alone, and that this right made it unconstitutional for the Government to unjustifiably intrude on a citizen’s life. Instead of taking Brandeis approach to privacy, the word liberty was adopted as the synonym for the concept of privacy. The word liberty appears in the 5th and 14th Amendments. The Court eventually established a doctrine of substantive due process, and stressed the word liberty in the due process clauses to prevent governments from enacting certain kinds of laws. Prior to the decision in Roe, abortion was not an important political issue.
Many states permitted abortion only to save the life of the mother while other states included legal abortion for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest or those in which the baby would be most likely deformed. Several cases arose on several grounds, including the 1st Amendment’s freedoms of association and speech for doctors (and patients) and the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Justice Blackmun’s decision on the Roe v. Wade case provided a comprehensive history of government regulation of abortion and reviewed in some detail argument for and against the procedure. Blackmun concluded that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation. A state may place regulations and rules in regard to safe-guarding health, maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain rules that govern the abortion decision. States may pass regulations on the qualifications of the person who performs the abortion, the licensure of that person, the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, licensing of the facility, etc. If the state is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, the state may go so far as to prevent abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.
