Grutter v. Bollinger Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Grutter v. Bollinger | 539 U.S. 306 (2003)
When Barbara Grutter wanted a career change, she probably never dreamed that it would lead to a showdown with the University of Michigan Law School before the United States Supreme Court. Grutter was a successful business owner when the denial of her law school application thrust her to the forefront of the national debate over affirmative action.
Grutter applied to the University of Michigan Law School, a highly competitive and elite institution, in 1997. Despite her academic qualifications, including a 3.8 undergraduate GPA and 89th percentile LSAT score, she was first waitlisted, and then ultimately denied a spot.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here www.quimbee.com/cases/grutter...
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Have Questions about this Case?
Submit your questions and get answers from real attorney here: www.quimbee.com/cases/grutter...
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our KZbin Channel ► kzbin.info_...
Quimbee Case Brief App ► www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...
Facebook ► / quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► / quimbeedotcom
casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

[@lostmoon77]

Wonderfully crafted informative videos. Bravo.

[@actanonverba3041]

I’m not too much a fan of extraconstitutional doctrines like tiered scrutiny, but I don’t see how a diverse student body is essential to the function of the institution. This is what strict scrutiny requires. It is certainly a noble objective, I have no doubt of that. It would surely pass intermediate scrutiny or rational basis review for all the reasons laid out in the Opinion, but if the Court opted to review it under the highest level of scrutiny, they could have and in fact should have struck down the college’s admissions policy. But I can understand their verdict from a position of judicial restraint. This would be a far-reaching new doctrine that would have a great effect on society at-large. But the people who signed onto the majority opinion don’t seem to care for restraint when they make other radical new constitutional doctrines.

[@michaeldodd3563]

The school has a compelling interest to foster a robust exchange of ideas like in Bakke. The state's compelling interest, though deferring to the school, is contradictory. On the one hand, the state says it has an interest in the schools interest to promote diversity because the major American businesses and the global marketplace can only be "developed through exposure to widely diverse people, cultures, ideas, and viewpoints" but then goes on to say "the law school does not premise its need for critical mass on any belief that minority students always (or even consistently) express some characteristic (which I assume means culture and ideas) minority viewpoint on any issue."

[@paperweight57]

These videos are helpful. Thanks!

[@gradychapman3511]

Thanks this was a good one

[@tikagogodze6248]

THIS DICISION IS UNFIAR

[@korenenglish9137]

Sounds like the guy from FNAF

[@valentinius62]

Bass ackwards. Not allowing a black person in who is highly qualified would not be right. It cannot be right to do so the other way around. I use the term "right" rather than "Constitutional" because that's what the Court was looking at...their view of "right" vs. "wrong"...not Constitutionality. The Court has done this so many times...believe they call it "legislating from the bench"? For instance, Schenk v. United States. Even though it was a free speech case, the Court was in no mood in the immediate post-WW I era to have the military draft be questioned under the Fourteenth Amendment (I doubt they are to this day in all fairness). The Sitz v. Michigan Department of State Police (validating DUI checkpoints as not violating the Fourth Amendment) was decided in the days when MADD was very strong. Almost certainly the Roe v. Wade case would never even have happened two or three decades before, probably not even one decade before. But with the rise of the Women's Liberation Movement and the Leftist tendencies of the rising Baby Boom Generation, this decision was a product of the social zeitgeist. Judges are generally incapable of looking at Constitutional cases without the prism of their own and societal views at any given time. Sometimes, though, they do go against public opinion as in Snyder v. Phelps (Westboro Baptist Church/Veterans' funerals). Even then, one Justice (Alito) still dissented with the majority opinion. As odious as Phelps was and his church is, the Court actually stood on the side of Liberty and a proper interpretation of the First Amendment on this case. However, looking at other free speech decisions, they aren't usually so generous and always seem to struggle with how to word their decisions as to not take too much authority from the police/state and not to allow the individual too much Liberty. Seem to bother them.

[@attacusatlas5108]

then how do you achieve diversity in the first place? Minority suffer long before it's time to apply to the university. It is unconstitutional to give the white population a headstart - better childhood, better social and economic security, better education; and the minority groups have less or none of that. Therefore it only perpetuates the racial disparity in universities. Fewer minority graduates from law schools - means less government representation for minorities also. If the minority population wants equal representation in the government - they deserve equal opportunities in life in general, including admissions to law schools. That's why the university is in the right. You can't oppress minorities for 200 years and then claim oppression when it's merely equality. How can minorities reach SCOTUS positions if they get fewer chances of enrolling and graduating from law schools?

[@valentinius62]

@@attacusatlas5108 Jews were oppressed for thousands of years, yet they have managed to be successful in all facets of society in most countries around the world.

[@RJStockton]

1:30 "The educational benefits of a diverse student body. . ." Such as?

[@oliviaraymccauley7658]

it literally lists them afterwards did you watch the video lmao