Supreme Court Backs Affirmative Action Ban in Michigan

Author: David B. Weisenfeld, XpertHR Legal Editor

April 23, 2014

The Supreme Court upheld Michigan's voter-approved affirmative action ban on Tuesday but stopped short of issuing a broad ruling on race-based preferences in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action.

The Michigan law prohibits the use of racial preferences in public universities, government contracting and public employment. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals had rejected that law in 2012, finding that it violated the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. But the Supreme Court has now struck down that ruling in a 6-2 vote.

Writing for the Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy said, "This case is not about how the debate about racial preferences should be resolved. It is about who may resolve it." Kennedy added that this decision is best left to the voters rather than the courts. Michigan's voters had approved the state constitutional amendment in 2006. Groups favoring affirmative action had sued to block the part of the law dealing with higher education.

Still, the Supreme Court's ruling may encourage similar state bans. In 2010, the California Supreme Court upheld a state constitutional amendment prohibiting racial preferences in public contracting. That ruling could have been called into question had the justices reached a contrary result in the Michigan case.

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted that a state resident who is a University of Michigan alumnus is free to advocate for an admissions policy that considers whether an applicant's family members attended the school. But under the statewide affirmative action ban, a race-sensitive policy that considers race in an individualized manner to achieve diversity is prohibited.

This marks the Supreme Court's second affirmative action ruling in less than a year. Last June, the Court held in Fisher v. University of Texas (UT) that the goal of racial diversity is not enough, by itself, to justify its use of race as a plus factor in admissions. Employer groups had sided with UT in defending the legality of its race-conscious admissions plan.