## Facts

- Barbara Grutter, a white Michigan resident with a 3.8 GPA and 161 LSAT score, was denied admission to the University of Michigan Law School.
- Grutter sued university officials, alleging the Law School’s race-conscious admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
- The Law School received more than 3,500 applications for a class of about 350 students.
- The Law School adopted a written admissions policy designed to evaluate applicants through a flexible review of academic indicators and nonnumerical factors, including personal statements, recommendations, essays, and other “soft variables.”
- The policy treated diversity broadly and allowed substantial weight for many forms of contribution, while reaffirming a commitment to include African-American, Hispanic, and Native-American students who might otherwise be present in low numbers.
- The policy sought a “critical mass” of underrepresented minority students to realize educational benefits associated with a diverse student body.
- After a bench trial, the district court held the use of race unlawful and enjoined consideration of race in admissions.
- The Sixth Circuit (en banc) reversed, concluding that diversity in higher education can be a compelling interest and the policy fit that framework.
- The Supreme Court granted review to determine whether the policy violated the Equal Protection Clause or Title VI.

## Issues

1. Whether a public law school may consider race as a factor in admissions consistent with the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI.
2. Whether student-body diversity in higher education constitutes a compelling governmental interest under strict scrutiny.
3. Whether the Law School’s use of race was narrowly tailored, including whether “critical mass” operated as a quota, whether individualized review occurred, and whether workable race-neutral alternatives were required.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Sixth Circuit in a 5–4 decision.
- The Court held that the educational benefits of student-body diversity in higher education can be a compelling interest.
- The Court held the Law School’s admissions policy was narrowly tailored because it used individualized, holistic review and treated race as a possible “plus” factor rather than a decisive, mechanical preference.
- The Court concluded the “critical mass” goal did not function as a quota because it did not reserve a fixed number or percentage of seats for any racial group and lacked rigid numerical targets.
- The Court ruled strict scrutiny does not require exhaustion of every conceivable race-neutral alternative, but does require good-faith consideration of workable alternatives.
- The Court found the policy did not unduly burden nonminority applicants because all candidates competed in a single admissions pool and no applicant was automatically excluded based on race.
- The Court emphasized that race-conscious measures must be limited in duration and should have a logical end point.

## Legal Principles

- Governmental racial classifications are subject to strict scrutiny and are constitutional only if narrowly tailored to further a compelling governmental interest.
- In higher education, obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body may qualify as a compelling interest.
- Narrow tailoring in admissions permits race to be considered as one factor in an individualized, holistic evaluation; quotas, separate tracks, and automatic numerical preferences are impermissible.
- A “critical mass” objective may be permissible if it is not a fixed set-aside and does not operate as a rigid numerical quota.
- Strict scrutiny requires serious, good-faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives, but not proof that every possible alternative was tried or would fail.
- Race-conscious admissions should be time-limited and directed toward an endpoint where racial preferences are no longer necessary.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s holistic admissions policy, holding that the educational benefits of diversity can be a compelling interest and that individualized, nonmechanical consideration of race aimed at achieving a nonquota “critical mass” can satisfy strict scrutiny and comply with Title VI.


Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003)