October Term 2002 · Docket 02-241
Can a law school use race in admissions to build a diverse student body?
Barbara Grutter challenges the University of Michigan Law School's use of race in admissions. The school defends its program as a tool for diversity.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Ms. Mahoney argued the Solicitor General's position ignores the record. She stated the school cannot achieve diversity through race-neutral means.
General Olson argued the program fails every test for racial preferences. He contended the policy violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Mr. Kolbo argued race is impermissible under the constitutional command of equality. He stated the university is free to make many different choices in selecting students.
Mr. Kolbo argued the University views the issue as a question of group rights. He contrasted this with the side that brought the case's focus on individual rights.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 5-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 31-47 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 31-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 41-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 41-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 45-5 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 45-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 7-9
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests whether a public law school may consider race in admissions. The school argues diversity is a compelling state interest. Grutter argues the program violates the Equal Protection Clause.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 5-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 31-47 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 31-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 41-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 41-13
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 1, 2003.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 45-5 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 45-5
What each side wants
Grutter wants the Court to strike down the admissions policy. She argues the policy violates the Constitution's equal protection guarantee.
The University wants the Court to uphold the admissions policy. It argues the policy serves the compelling interest of student body diversity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 5-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 31-47 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 31-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 41-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 41-13
What each side says
Grutter's counsel argues race is impermissible under the constitutional command of equality. They contend the school can achieve diversity through race-neutral means.
The University's counsel argues the policy meets strict scrutiny. They assert the school cannot achieve a diverse student body through facially race-neutral means.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 5-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 31-47 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 31-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 41-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 41-13
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked counsel to comment on a specific amicus brief. He also asked the side that brought the case to clarify the distinction between group rights and individual rights.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 45-5 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 45-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 7-9
Why it matters
The outcome defines the scope of racial preferences in public education. It determines whether universities may use race to achieve diversity. This sets a precedent for future admissions policies nationwide.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 5-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 31-47 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 31-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 41-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 41-13
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 54, lines 45-5 — Transcript, file page 54, lines 45-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 7-9
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 5-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 31-47 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 31-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 41-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 41-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 19, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 19, lines 5-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 31-47 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 31-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 41-13 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 41-13
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.