Sixth Circuit strikes down Michigan affirmative action ban

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit [official website] ruled Thursday that Michigan's voter approved initiative to ban consideration of race for applications to public universities is unconstitutional [opinion, PDF]. In a split 8-7 decision, the court struck down Proposal 2 [text, PDF; JURIST news archive], which banned affirmative action in public employment, public education and state contracting. The court, sitting en banc, reasoned that Proposal 2 made the process for college admissions unequal by preventing universities from employing race-conscious programs, thus disadvantaging minorities. Proposal 2 modified the Michigan political process by banning any legislation that would be beneficial to minorities in the application process for employment and for university admissions. As a result of this burden on minorities, the legislation was examined under a strict scrutiny standard, meaning the Attorney General had to prove that the legislation was necessary to advance a "compelling state interest." Circuit Judge R. Guy Cole, Jr. wrote the majority opinion, stating:

In Seattle, the Court did not consider whether a compelling state interest might justify a state's enactment of a racially-focused law that restructures the political process, because the government made no such argument. ... Likewise, because the Attorney General does not assert that Proposal 2 satisfies a compelling state interest, we need not consider this argument. Therefore, those portions of Proposal 2 that affect Michigan's public institutions of higher education violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Although Proposal 2 also addressed employment policies, the court's decision was limited to the ban on race for the purposes of public university admissions.

A three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit previously found the proposal unconstitutional [JURIST report] in July 2011. The panel ruled that the proposal unduly burdened minorities by abusing a political process where minorities were likely to have no redress. The ruling reversed a 2008 decision by the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to dismiss the challenge [JURIST report] with prejudice. Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette made a formal request for a rehearing [JURIST report] in July 2011 stating that the Sixth Circuit's decision conflicted with prior decisions of the court. In September 2011 the Sixth Circuit agreed to a rehearing en banc to determine the constitutionality of Proposal 2, which was approved by voters [JURIST reports] in 2006. The US Supreme Court heard arguments last month in in Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin [JURIST report], in which the plaintiff is challenging the constitutionality of that university's affirmative action program. A ruling is expected by June.

 

About Paper Chase

Paper Chase is JURIST's real-time legal news service, powered by a team of 30 law student reporters and editors led by law professor Bernard Hibbitts at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law. As an educational service, Paper Chase is dedicated to presenting important legal news and materials rapidly, objectively and intelligibly in an accessible format.

© Copyright JURIST Legal News and Research Services, Inc., 2013.