The plurality instead reads those cases to invalidate government actions because they reflected a discriminatory purpose. The people, and their elected officials, have the right to adopt race-based policies for reasons of inclusion and the right to vote not to do so. Under the political-process doctrine of Hunter and Seattle, when the majority reconfigures the political process in a way that burdens only a racial minority, the action bears strict judicial scrutiny. Unlock your Study Buddy for the 14 day, no risk, unlimited use trial. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (BAMN) (Plaintiff) challenged an amendment to the Michigan state constitution prohibiting the use of race-based preferences in the admissions process for state universities. No. Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 572 U.S. 291 (2014), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court concerning affirmative action and race- and sex-based discrimination in public university admissions.In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause does not prevent states from enacting bans on affirmative action in education. An amendment to a state constitution that prohibits the consideration of race in the admissions process for state universities is not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The issue here, as in every case where a neutral state action is said to deny equal protection on the basis of race, is whether the challenged action has a racially discriminatory intent. The policies that have now been eliminated had previously survived strict scrutiny and were, therefore, the least restrictive ways to achieve the state’s compelling interest in diversity. The plurality has rewritten those precedents beyond recognition. The voters changed the basic rules of the political process in the state in a way that disadvantaged racial minorities. In both Mulkey and Hunter, state encouragement or participation made an existing injury on the basis of race more aggravated. The plurality perpetuates racial inequality by ignoring it. As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course.
It does not. The Jacksonian Era to the Civil War, 1835-1865, From Reconstruction to the New Deal: 1866-1934, Federalism, Separation of Powers, and National Security in the Modern Era, Liberty, Equality, and Fundamental Rights: The Constitution, the Family, and the Body, The Constitution in the Modern Welfare State, LSAT Logic Games (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning I (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning II (June 2007 Practice Exam), You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (BAMN). Judgment for defendants. Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action involves a challenge to Proposal 2, a 2006 Michigan ballot initiative that created a state constitutional ban on race-conscious college admissions policies and created a discriminatory system of determining school admission criteria.
Email Address: You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, If you have not signed up for your Casebriefs Cloud account Click Here, Thank you for registering as a Pre-Law Student with Casebriefs™.
The political-process doctrine requires a court to determine whether a law that transfers policymaking authority concerns a racial issue and then whether adopting one position is intended to benefit, and would benefit, the minority.
address. In this case, the amendment has a racial focus, and the plurality’s reasoning that upholding the political-process doctrine would divide the country along racial lines, ignores reality and history. Shanta Driver for Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action respondents Facts of the case In November 2006 election, a majority of Michigan voters supported a proposition to amend the state constitution to prohibit "all sex-and race-based preferences in public education, public … That is what happened here. 1.1. It is also clear that this amendment removed that power from the boards and placed it at a higher level of the political process in Michigan. The voters overturned the ordinance and the Court found that this action by the voters placed a burden on minorities within the governmental process and was just as impermissible as any other government action taken with the intent of harming a racial minority. 14,000 + case briefs, hundreds of Law Professor developed 'quick' Black Letter Law.
There are three features to the right to political participation—every eligible citizen has the right to vote, the majority cannot restrict the minority’s ability to exercise the right to vote, and a majority may not reconfigure the existing political process in a way that creates a two-tiered system. This rationale would then require a court to determine which policies each class had an interest in, again without legal standards. Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™: Monthly Subscription ($19 / Month) Annual Subscription ($175 / Year). The dissent also does not explain why a group’s “discreteness” or “insularity” would be a political weakness instead of a strength. (Kennedy, J.) We reject that reading of Seattle and to the extent that Seattle is read to require the Court to decide which governmental policies are in the best interests of a racial class, that rationale was unnecessary to decide the issue in Seattle, is not supported by precedent, and raises equal protection concerns. Seattle, Hunter, and the entire political-process doctrine should be overturned. In November 2006, Michigan voters adopted Proposal 2, an amendment to the Michigan Constitution prohibiting discrimination against or preferential treatment to individuals in public education, government contracting, and public employment on the basis of race, sex, ethnicity, or national origin. The plaintiffs cannot prove that the amendment was motivated by a racially discriminatory purpose because a law that expressly requires state actors to treat everyone equally cannot deny any person equal protection of the laws.
Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam. Hunter and Seattle also endorse the view that a facially neutral law may still violate equal protection rights if it results in a disparate racial impact. An application of this proposition here would lead to a finding for the plaintiffs.
In 2012, Proposal 2 was declared unconstitutional by the United States Court of Appeals for
A subordinate’s discretion over a matter would end up serving as a kind of reverse preemption, permitting local government to permanently preempt the state from addressing a matter of importance to the state. Third, Hunter and Seattle, which stand for the proposition that an individual’s ability to participate meaningfully in the political process should not be restricted because of his race, do not apply in this case. This case involves an amendment that took decisionmaking authority away from unelected university officials and administrators and gave it to the voters. (Breyer, J.) Michigan residents voted in favor of an amendment to the state constitution prohibiting the use of race-based preferences in the admissions process for state universities. If this feature of the right to political participation is not protected, the minority can participate, but the majority can change the rules to make sure the minority always loses. You also agree to abide by our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy, and you may cancel at any time. The Hunter-Seattle rationale nearly eclipses the rule of structural state sovereignty. 1, 458 U.S. 457 (1982) and Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969). You have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter. That theory has been rejected by a line of cases holding that only state action motivated by discriminatory intent violates the Equal Protection Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari. Get Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 134 S. Ct. 1623 (2014), United States Supreme Court, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. See Washington v. Seattle School Dist. The political-process doctrine resovles this case as a matter of stare decisis, but also as a matter of first principles, since the doctrine reflects the principle that the minority has the right to participate in the process on the same terms as the majority. As the state’s universities started to use affirmative action to undo the effects of racial discrimination, the voters eliminated the policy in a way that reconfigured the existing political process in Michigan in a way that burdened racial minorities. Race-neutral admissions policies have been shown to be insufficient to achieve racial diversity. In this case, there is no infliction of a specific harm as was found in Hunter and Mulkey and so there is no precedent for extending those holding to prevent Michigan voters from determining that race-based admissions preferences should be ended. Race-based admissions preferences both enhance educational benefits through diversity, a compelling state interest, and benefit a racial minority. Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following, The Bank of the United States: A Case Study, Are We a Nation? This rationale would require an assumption on the part of a court that all members of a certain racial group think alike as to such policies. This approach also misreads the Equal Protection Clause to protect certain groups instead of seeing equal protection as an individual right. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. Those cases were about the restructuring of political processes that changed the political level at which policies were enacted. The issue here, as opposed to in the earlier cases, is not a state action to address or prevent racial injury, but whether voters can decide whether a policy promoting race-based preferences should be continued. There was no majority opinion in this case, reflecting the division among the Court about its proper role in the enforcement of the Equal Protection Clause. (Scalia, J.) Justice Breyer assumes that the governing boards delegated admissions policy decisions to unelected university faculty members and administrators, but it is clear that the elected governing boards had the authority to eliminate or adopt race-based admissions preferences prior to the constitutional amendment at issue here. A two-tiered system subjects laws created to protect or benefit a discrete or insular minority group to a more difficult political process than other laws. You also agree to abide by our. [The remainder of the procedural posture is not included in the casebook excerpt.]. The Constitution sees the electoral process, and not the courts, as the normal means for resolving debates about such programs. The dissent claims that legislation motivated by bias against discrete and insular minorities requires heightened scrutiny, but does not demonstrate that this legislation was motivated by bias or why certain racial minorities would be considered an “insular” group as a result of prejudice. Schuette symposium: Racial supremacy (Girardeau Spann) Symposium: Schuette tests limits on public control of public-university admissions (Michael F. Smith) Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action: The intellectual confusion that surrounds affirmative action today (Richard A. Epstein) Symposium announcement: Schuette v. Your Study Buddy will automatically renew until cancelled. Additionally, contrary to what Justice Scalia and the plurality assert, the first prong of the political-process doctrine does have a clear legal standard—does the public policy at issue inure primarily to the benefit of the minority and was it designed for that purpose?