Master Supreme Court struck down the University of Michigan undergraduate admissions points system as not narrowly tailored under the Equal Protection Clause. with this comprehensive case brief.
Gratz v. Bollinger is one of the Supreme Court’s landmark affirmative action decisions, issued the same day as Grutter v. Bollinger. Together, the cases draw the constitutional boundary between permissible race-conscious admissions and unlawful racial preferences. While Grutter upheld the law school’s holistic, individualized review, Gratz invalidated the undergraduate college’s mechanical points system that automatically awarded substantial points on the basis of race.
The decision is significant because it adopts strict scrutiny for racial classifications in public university admissions and clarifies what “narrow tailoring” requires. It recognizes student body diversity in higher education as a potentially compelling interest but insists that any use of race must be flexible, individualized, and non-mechanical. Gratz thus became a touchstone for universities redesigning admissions policies and for subsequent litigation over affirmative action and Title VI.
Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003)
The University of Michigan College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LSA) used a selection-index admissions policy that assigned applicants up to 150 points based on academic and non-academic factors. An applicant who reached a threshold—commonly around 100 points—was generally assured admission. Underrepresented minority applicants (including African American, Hispanic, and Native American applicants) automatically received 20 points solely on the basis of their race. Other points could be earned for grades and test scores, socioeconomic disadvantage, residency, legacy status, athletics, and other factors. Jennifer Gratz (applied in 1995) and Patrick Hamacher (applied in 1997), both white Michigan residents, were denied or not admitted to their preferred term and filed a class action against University officials (including then-President Lee Bollinger) alleging violations of the Equal Protection Clause, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The University defended its policy as necessary to achieve educational benefits of diversity and to enroll a “critical mass” of underrepresented minority students. During the litigation, the LSA revised its policy (1999–2000) into a formal points system that continued to award an automatic 20 points for underrepresented minority status and “flagged” some applications for review. The District Court held that diversity could be a compelling interest and ruled differently as to different time periods of the policy; the case came to the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of the points-based use of race. The Court also addressed standing and relief, concluding at least one plaintiff had standing to seek injunctive and declaratory relief.
Does the University of Michigan’s undergraduate admissions policy, which automatically awards a fixed number of points to every underrepresented minority applicant in pursuit of diversity, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and, by extension, Title VI?
Racial classifications by a state actor are subject to strict scrutiny and must be justified by a compelling governmental interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Student body diversity in higher education can be a compelling interest (consistent with Bakke and affirmed in Grutter), but the means employed must provide individualized consideration and cannot function as a quota or mechanical award that makes race decisive for many applicants. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits race discrimination by federally funded programs and is coextensive with the Equal Protection standards for intentional discrimination.
Yes. The LSA’s automatic award of 20 points to every underrepresented minority applicant, without individualized consideration, is not narrowly tailored to the asserted compelling interest in diversity and violates the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for appropriate relief.
Applying strict scrutiny, the Court accepted that student body diversity can qualify as a compelling interest in higher education. However, the LSA’s method failed the narrow-tailoring requirement. Unlike the law school policy upheld in Grutter, which engaged in holistic, individualized review, the LSA policy mechanically assigned a predetermined 20-point bonus to all underrepresented minority applicants on a 150-point scale—an amount that was often dispositive of admission because it could shift many candidates across the automatic-admission threshold. This categorical, across-the-board award treated all members of a racial group alike regardless of their individual qualities and did not ensure the individualized consideration Bakke required. The University argued that some applications were “flagged” for additional review, but the Court found that flagging did not cure the systemic reliance on race as an automatic factor for all underrepresented minorities and did not provide all applicants individualized assessment. The Court also noted that less mechanical, race-conscious methods and race-neutral alternatives had not been fully pursued within the undergraduate process. Because the LSA plan operated as a de facto quota-like preference by automatically tipping many admissions decisions based on race alone, it was not narrowly tailored. Given that Title VI’s standards track the Equal Protection analysis for intentional discrimination by federally funded entities, the same defect rendered the policy unlawful under Title VI and § 1981 as well. Plaintiffs had standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief, and the case was remanded for appropriate remedies.
Gratz draws a bright doctrinal line: while diversity can be a compelling interest, admissions systems cannot use rigid, mechanical racial preferences. The case, paired with Grutter, teaches that narrow tailoring demands individualized, holistic review and disallows automatic point bonuses tied to race. It has guided universities in designing admissions policies and influenced later cases like Fisher I and II, which reiterated that courts must meaningfully enforce strict scrutiny and reject policies that treat race as decisive without individualized assessment.
No. The Court accepted student body diversity in higher education as a compelling interest, consistent with Bakke and confirmed in Grutter decided the same day. Gratz turned on narrow tailoring: the undergraduate policy’s mechanical award of 20 points to all underrepresented minority applicants failed to provide individualized consideration.
The automatic award of a fixed 20-point bonus to every underrepresented minority applicant on a 150-point scale lacked individualized consideration and made race decisive for many applicants. That mechanistic approach is not narrowly tailored under strict scrutiny, even if the end goal—diversity—is compelling.
Grutter upheld the law school’s holistic, individualized review that considered race as one factor among many without fixed weight, finding it narrowly tailored. Gratz struck down the undergraduate college’s points system because it assigned a predetermined, substantial weight to race for all underrepresented minority applicants, rendering the system mechanical rather than individualized.
Because the University receives federal funds, Title VI applies. The Court explained that Title VI’s prohibition on intentional race discrimination is coextensive with the Equal Protection Clause; thus, the same strict-scrutiny analysis determined the Title VI outcome. Since the policy violated Equal Protection, it also violated Title VI (and § 1981).
Yes. At least one plaintiff had standing to pursue declaratory and injunctive relief against the ongoing policy, and the Court proceeded to adjudicate the merits. Standing challenges did not bar the Court from granting relief against the active points-based system.
Gratz v. Bollinger is a foundational Equal Protection decision that invalidates mechanical race-based preferences in university admissions. It clarifies that while diversity may be a compelling objective, constitutional compliance requires individualized review rather than automatic racial point bonuses that effectively predetermine outcomes for large numbers of applicants.
For students and institutions, the case delineates the operational contours of narrow tailoring under strict scrutiny: avoid rigid formulas tied to race, ensure individualized consideration, and meaningfully evaluate workable alternatives. Gratz continues to shape admissions policies and judicial analysis in affirmative action litigation.