Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle On-The-Road
    • Professional Development
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle On-The-Road
    • Professional Development
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    Student Housing
    Serving Higher Ed
    Chronicle Festival 2025
Sign In
News

Legality of Racial-Preference Bans Is Disputed in Federal Court

By Peter Schmidt November 15, 2009
Despite a protest against Michigan’s Proposal 2 in 2006, voters approved the ban on affirmative-action preferences at public colleges and other agencies. Now a lawsuit filed by opponents of the ban has reached a federal appeals court.
Despite a protest against Michigan’s Proposal 2 in 2006, voters approved the ban on affirmative-action preferences at public colleges and other agencies. Now a lawsuit filed by opponents of the ban has reached a federal appeals court.Bill Pugliano, Getty Images

In a legal battle with potential implications for any state that bans affirmative-action preferences, a federal appeals court is weighing arguments that the ban adopted by Michigan voters in 2006 is unconstitutional because it places distinct burdens on minority residents seeking more access to the state’s public colleges.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

In a legal battle with potential implications for any state that bans affirmative-action preferences, a federal appeals court is weighing arguments that the ban adopted by Michigan voters in 2006 is unconstitutional because it places distinct burdens on minority residents seeking more access to the state’s public colleges.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is expected to hear oral arguments in the case this week. It involves two lawsuits by opponents of the ban that a U.S. District Court consolidated into one in 2007, soon after they were filed.

The opponents are asking the appeals court to overturn a March 2008 decision by Judge David M. Lawson, of the U.S. District Court in Detroit, dismissing their lawsuits. At the heart of their appeal is a rejection of his conclusion that the Michigan ban, known as Proposal 2, in no way restricted the right of women and people from minority groups to equal protection under the law, and instead precluded them only from seeking preferential treatment from public colleges and other state and local agencies.

The plaintiffs’ argument—that Proposal 2 prevents minority members from using political means to try to obtain fair access to education—echoes those that were made in a challenge of Proposition 209, a similar amendment to California’s Constitution adopted by that state’s voters in 1996. Even though the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the California measure in 1997, opponents of the Michigan ban say they have a decent chance of prevailing.

One key reason is that, following the Ninth Circuit’s decision, the U.S. Supreme Court removed much of the uncertainty surrounding the legality of race-conscious college-admissions policies with its 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger decision, which upheld the consideration of applicants’ race and ethnicity by the University of Michigan Law School.

In addition, the composition of the three-judge panel on the Sixth Circuit court handling the latest Michigan case seems promising for the opponents of Proposal 2. Two of the judges, Ransey Guy Cole Jr. and Martha Craig Daughtrey, are nominees of President Bill Clinton who have liberal reputations and were members of the Sixth Circuit majority that upheld the Michigan law school’s policies in Grutter. The third member of the panel, Judge Julia Smith Gibbons, was nominated by President George W. Bush but has a reputation as one of the court’s more moderate Republican nominees.

Regardless of how the three-judge panel rules, however, its decision is almost certain to be appealed to the full Sixth Circuit, whose membership tilts conservative.

Conflicting Agendas

One of the two lawsuits merged into the case before the Sixth Circuit was filed on behalf of students, faculty members, and prospective applicants to Michigan’s public universities, with the plaintiffs’ legal team including lawyers from the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the Detroit branch of the NAACP, and the American Civil Liberties Union. The other lawsuit was brought by the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality by Any Means Necessary, an activist group, known as BAMN, that played a significant role in fighting both Michigan’s Proposal 2 and California’s Proposition 209.

The chief named defendants in the case—the governing boards and presidents of Michigan State University, the University of Michigan, and Wayne State University—have made clear that they take no position on Proposal 2 and seek, in their brief submitted to the Sixth Circuit, to be dismissed as parties to the lawsuit.

“Simply put, the universities do not belong in the case,” their brief says. “The universities did not draft Proposal 2. They did not pass Proposal 2. They cannot change Proposal 2. They are not executive branch agencies charged with enforcing Proposal 2.”

ADVERTISEMENT

A brief filed by BAMN argues that the university officials should remain as defendants, however, because although they were not behind the measure, “they have made the choice both to implement it and how it should be implemented.”

Much of the task of fighting the lawsuits against Proposal 2 has been taken on by Michael A. Cox, Michigan’s Republican attorney general, who intervened as a defendant in the cases.

Eric Russell, a white student who was applying to Michigan’s law school at the time Proposal 2 was passed, is also seeking to intervene as a defendant with the help of lawyers for the Center for Individual Rights, a Washington-based advocacy group that has played a major role in several challenges to race-conscious admissions in the federal courts.

A Matter of Say

Much of the legal dispute pending before the Sixth Circuit boils down to rival interpretations of two Supreme Court precedents dealing with measures affecting minority members’ involvement in the political process.

ADVERTISEMENT

In its 1969 ruling in Hunter v. Erickson, the Supreme Court struck down an amendment to the city charter of Akron, Ohio, that required a referendum on any ordinance regulating real-estate transactions “on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or ancestry.” The court said the amendment violated the U.S. Constitution’s equal-protection clause because it left minority members marginalized in the governmental process, given their disadvantage at the polls. In its 1982 ruling in Washington v. Seattle School District No. 1, the court used similar logic in overturning a Washington State ballot measure that effectively allowed school busing for nearly any reason except to promote racial integration.

In his ruling dismissing the challenges to Michigan’s Proposal 2, Judge Lawson of the District Court agreed that the measure was similar to those that had been at issue in Akron and Washington State in that it had a racial focus and made it more difficult for minority members to advance a political objective—in this case, greater representation at the state’s public colleges. But he said the two Supreme Court precedents applied only to measures that deny people equal protection, and not to those that preclude them from preferential treatment.

The briefs filed by the two groups of plaintiffs argue that Judge Lawson let his concern about a political outcome—preferential treatment—cloud his judgment of whether the political proc ess itself had been rendered unfair by Proposal 2. The plaintiffs say the measure forces minority advocates who seek the reinstatement of race-conscious admissions policies to undertake the daunting task of getting voters to repeal Proposal 2. Other constituencies in the state, such as residents of rural areas, do not need to clear such hurdles to influence admissions policies.

Mr. Cox’s brief argues that Proposal 2 ensures exactly what the Supreme Court advocated in its precedents dealing with Akron and Seattle: freedom from discrimination. The attorney general also challenges the idea that public colleges’ admissions policies are developed politically, arguing that the proc ess is much more “an academic one,” involving faculty members and administrators and “generally not open to public scrutiny.”

Michigan is the only state within the Sixth Circuit with a ban on affirmative-action preferences. The appeals court’s ruling could, however, influence other courts that might take up challenges to California’s Proposition 209 or similar measures adopted by Washington State in 1998 and Nebraska last year, and being contemplated in other states.

We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Tags
Law & Policy
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
About the Author
Peter Schmidt
Peter Schmidt was a senior writer for The Chronicle of Higher Education. He covered affirmative action, academic labor, and issues related to academic freedom. He is a co-author of The Merit Myth: How Our Colleges Favor the Rich and Divide America (The New Press, 2020).
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

More News

UCLA students, researchers and demonstrators rally during a "Kill the Cuts" protest against the Trump administration's funding cuts on research, health and higher education at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) in Los Angeles on April 8, 2025.
Scholarship & Research
Trump Proposed Slashing the National Science Foundation’s Budget. A Key Senate Committee Just Refused.
Illustration of a steamroller rolling over a colorful road and leaving gray asphalt in its wake.
Newly Updated
Oregon State U. Will End a Renowned Program That Aimed to Reduce Bias in Hiring
Dr. Gregory Washington, president of George Mason University.
Another probe
George Mason President Discriminated Against White People After George Floyd Protests, Justice Dept. Says
Protesters gather outside the Department of Education headquarters in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 14, 2025 to protest the Trump administrations cuts at the agency.
An Uncertain Future
The Education Dept. Got a Green Light to Shrink. Here Are 3 Questions About What’s Next.

From The Review

Photo-based illustration with repeated images of a student walking, in the pattern of a graph trending down, then up.
The Review | Opinion
7 Ways Community Colleges Can Boost Enrollment
By Bob Levey
Illustration of an ocean tide shaped like Donald Trump about to wash away sandcastles shaped like a college campus.
The Review | Essay
Why Universities Are So Powerless in Their Fight Against Trump
By Jason Owen-Smith
Photo-based illustration of a closeup of a pencil meshed with a circuit bosrd
The Review | Essay
How Are Students Really Using AI?
By Derek O'Connell

Upcoming Events

07-31-Turbulent-Workday_assets v2_Plain.png
Keeping Your Institution Moving Forward in Turbulent Times
Ascendium_Housing_Plain.png
What It Really Takes to Serve Students’ Basic Needs: Housing
Lead With Insight
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin