Share This Page

Court adds affirmative action case

| Monday, March 25, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will hear Michigan's appeal of a surprising ruling that struck down its voters' ban on giving “preferential treatment” to students based on their race, weighing the emotionally tense issue of affirmative action for the second time in a year.

At the October argument in Fisher v. University of Texas, the court's conservative justices sounded as if they were ready to impose new limits on the use of race in college admissions. More than five months have passed without a decision, which is not unusual in the court's most contentious cases.

The Michigan measure is nearly identical to the California proposition that in 1996 abolished race-based affirmative action policies for admission to the state's colleges and universities.

But defenders of affirmative action went to federal court in Michigan and won a ruling from the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals that held the state measure unconstitutional on the grounds it took away a civil rights provision that benefited minorities.

The Supreme Court justices are highly skeptical of any use of race-based policies, and few doubted the justices would hear Michigan's defense of its ban on race-based affirmative action. The only surprise was that the justices announced they would hear the appeal before they ruled on the pending affirmative action case involving Texas.

In that case, lawyers for a rejected white student urged the court to rule that giving preferences to applicants based on their race violates the Constitution's promise of “equal protection of the laws.” A decision in that case is expected this spring.

Michigan's voters appeared to adopt the kind of race-neutral admission policies that many of the justices favor. The measure told the state universities to admit students without regard to their race or ethnicity.

The high court said it will hear the Michigan case in the fall. Justice Elena Kagan is not taking part in the case, apparently because she worked on it as solicitor general.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.