Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke

Notable Items:

Issue(s) Before the Court:

Petitioner's Claim(s):

Respondent's Claim(s):

Holding(s) and Disposition:

Material Facts:

• A full recounting of the facts is available below

Procedural History:

Rationale

Powell Majority Opinion (White, Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun)

• A full description of the rationale is available below

Brennan Concurrance in part, dissent in part (Marshall, White, Blackmun)

Stevens Concurrance in part, dissent in part (Burger, Stewart, Rehnquist)

White Opinion

Marshall Opinion

Blackmun Opinion

?? Dissent (??)

Full Recounting of Facts

• A list of the material facts is available above

Powell Majority Full Argument (White, Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun)

• Part I
• Part II A
• Part II B
• Part III A
• Part III B
• Part III C
• Part IV A
• Part IV B
• Part IV C
• Part IV D
• Part V A
• But petitioner's argument that this [reservation of a specified number of seats] is the only effective means of serving the interest of diversity is seriously flawed.
• The diversity that furthers a compelling state interest encompasses a far broader array of qualifications and characteristics, of which racial or ethnic origin is but a single, though important, element.
• The applicant who loses out on the last available seat to another candidate receiving a "plus" on the basis of ethnic background will not have been foreclosed from all consideration for that seat simply because he was not the right color or had the wrong surname.
• A facial intent to discriminate, however, is evident in petitioner's preference program, and not denied in this case.
• No such facial infirmity exists in an admissions program where race or ethnic background is simply one element -- to be weighed fairly against other elements -- in the selection process.
• Part V B
• In summary, it is evident that the Davis special admissions program involves the use of an explicit racial classification never before countenanced by this Court.
• The fatal flaw in petitioner's preferential program is its disregard of individual rights as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
• But when a State's distribution of benefits or imposition of burdens hinges on ancestry or the color of a person's skin, that individual is entitled to a demonstration that the challenged classification is necessary to promote a substantial state interest.
• Petitioner has failed to carry this burden.
• Part V C
• ... the California court's judgment as enjoins petitioner from any consideration of the race of any applicant must be reversed.
• Part VI
• With respect to respondent's entitlement to an injunction directing his admission to the Medical School, petitioner has conceded that it could not carry its burden of proving that, but for the existence of its unlawful special admissions program, respondent still would not have been admitted.
• The core of the rationale is available above