October Term 2002 · Docket 02-516
Does Michigan's admissions policy violate equal protection?
Applicants claim the university used race to deny them admission.
Verified source milestones
- — 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
Kirk Kolbo argued the policy flagrantly discriminated against his clients.
General Olson argued the policy created a separate path for minorities.
Olson stated non-preferred groups face rigorous competition for admission.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 35-47 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 35-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 41-25 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 41-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher sued the University of Michigan. They claim the school used race in admissions. The university defends its policy.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 35-47 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 35-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 41-25 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 41-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-25
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 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
What each side wants
Applicants want the court to strike down the admissions policy.
The university wants the court to uphold the admissions policy.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 35-47 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 35-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 41-25 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 41-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-25
What each side says
Applicants argue the policy discriminates based on race.
The university argues the policy creates a separate path for minorities.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 35-47 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 35-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 41-25 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 41-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-25
What the justices asked
Does the policy create a separate door for preferred groups?
Does the policy deny admission to non-preferred groups?
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 35-47 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 35-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 41-25 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 41-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
Why it matters
This case defines how colleges may use race in admissions. It affects access to elite education for all students.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 35-47 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 35-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 41-25 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 41-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-25
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 18, lines 35-47 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 35-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 41-25 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 41-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
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 18, lines 35-47 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 35-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 41-25 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 41-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 18, lines 35-47 — Transcript, file page 18, lines 35-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 41-25 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 41-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-25
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.