Law and Race Commons^™

Brief For Respondents, Grutter V. Bollinger, 539 Us 306 (2003) (No. 02-241)., Maureen E. Mahoney, Evan Caminker, Marvin Krislov, Jonathan Alger, Philip J. Kessler, Leonard M. Niehoff, J. Scott Ballenger, Nathaniel A. Vitan, John H. Pickering, John Payton, Brigida Benitez, Stuart Delery, Craig Goldblatt, Anne Harkavy, Terry A. Maroney

Appellate Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether this Court should reaffirm its decision in Regents of University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) and hold that the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body to an institution of higher education, its students, and the public it serves, are sufficiently compelling to permit the school to consider race and/or ethnicity as one of many factors in making admissions decisions through a "properly devised" admissions program.

2. Whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that the University of Michigan Law School's admissions program is properly devised.

Equal Protection And Disparate Impact: Round Three, Richard A. Primus

Articles

Prior inquiries into the relationship between equal protection and disparate impact have focused on whether equal protection entails a disparate impact standard and whether laws prohibiting disparate impacts can qualify as legislation enforcing equal rotection. In this Article, Professor Primus focuses on a third question: whether equal protection affirmatively forbids the use of statutory disparate impact standards. Like affirmative action, a statute restricting racially disparate impacts is a race-conscious mechanism designed to reallocate opportunities from some racial groups to others. Accordingly, the same individualist view of equal protection that has constrained the operation of affirmative action might also raise questions …