societal discrimination

In August 1998, respondents George Lane and Beverly Jones filed this action against the State of Tennessee and several Tennessee counties. They alleged past and ongoing violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Both respondents are paraplegics who use wheelchairs for mobility. They claimed that they were denied access to and the services of the state court system by reason of their disabilities. Lane alleged that he was compelled to appear to answer a set of criminal charges on the second floor of a county courthouse that had no elevator. At his first appearance, Lane crawled up two flights of stairs to get to the courtroom. When Lane returned to the courthouse for a hearing, he refused to crawl again or to be carried by officers to the courtroom. He consequently was arrested and jailed for failure to appear. Jones, a certified court reporter, alleged that she has not been able to gain access to several county courthouses. As a result, she has lost both work and an opportunity to participate in the judicial process. Respondents sought damages and equitable relief. The State moved to dismiss the suit on the ground that it was barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The District Court denied the motion without opinion, and the State appealed. The United States intervened to defend Title II's abrogation of the States' Eleventh Amendment immunity. On April 28, 2000, after the appeal had been briefed and argued, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit entered an order holding the case in abeyance pending the Supreme Court's decision in Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett. In Garrett, the Supreme Court concluded that the Eleventh Amendment bars private suits seeking money damages for state violations of Title I of the ADA. It left open the question whether the Eleventh Amendment permits suits for money damages under Title II. Following the Garrett decision, the Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, heard argument in a Title II suit brought by a hearing-impaired litigant. The litigant sought money damages for the State's failure to accommodate his disability in a child custody proceeding. A divided court permitted the suit to proceed despite the State's assertion of Eleventh Amendment immunity. Following the en banc decision in Popovich, a panel of the Court of Appeals entered an order affirming the District Court's denial of the State's motion to dismiss in this case. The order explained that respondents' claims were not barred because they were based on due process principles. In response to a petition for rehearing arguing that Popovich was not controlling because the complaint did not allege due process violations, the panel filed an amended opinion. It explained that the Due Process Clause protects the right of access to the courts. It also explained that the evidence before Congress when it enacted Title II established that physical barriers in government buildings, including courthouses and in the courtrooms themselves, have had the effect of denying disabled people the opportunity to access vital services and to exercise fundamental rights guaranteed by the Due Process Clause. The panel did not, however, categorically reject the State's submission. It instead noted that the case presented difficult questions that cannot be clarified absent a factual record, and remanded for further proceedings. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and now reviews the case.

In 1972 the Jackson Board of Education, because of racial tension in the community that extended to its schools, asked the Michigan State Board of Education to investigate the possibility of violations of the Michigan civil rights statutes by the Jackson School District. Following an investigation, the State Board found that there was no direct evidence of discrimination on the part of the Jackson Board. Nevertheless, because of the racial imbalance on the faculty as compared to the student population, the State Board suggested that the District might wish to consider some type of affirmative action program. The Board and the Jackson Education Association then negotiated the provision in the 1972 collective-bargaining agreement that is at issue in this case. That provision stated that in the event that it becomes necessary to reduce the number of teachers, those teachers with the longest seniority will be retained. The provision specified that at no time will there be a greater percentage of minority personnel laid off than the current percentage of minority personnel employed at the time of the layoff. In no event will the number of minority personnel employed be reduced below the number of minority personnel employed at the time of the layoff. When layoffs became necessary in 1974, it was evident that adherence to the collective-bargaining agreement would result in the layoff of tenured nonminority teachers while minority teachers on probationary status were retained. Rather than complying with the agreement, the Board retained the tenured teachers and laid off probationary minority teachers. The Union, together with two minority teachers who had been laid off, brought suit in federal court. After the federal court dismissed the action, the plaintiffs instituted a suit in state court, raising in essence the same claims. In entering judgment for the plaintiffs, the state court found that the Board had breached its contract with the plaintiffs and that Article XII did not violate the Michigan Teacher Tenure Act. In rejecting the Board's argument that the layoff provision violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the state court found that it had not been established that the board had discriminated against minorities in its hiring practices. The minority representation on the faculty was the result of societal racial discrimination. The state court also found that there is no history of overt past discrimination by the parties to this contract. Nevertheless, the court held that Article XII was permissible, despite its discriminatory effect on nonminority teachers, as an attempt to remedy the effects of societal discrimination. After the state-court decision, the Board adhered to Article XII. As a result, during the 1976-1977 and 1981-1982 school years, nonminority teachers were laid off, while minority teachers with less seniority were retained. The displaced nonminority teachers, petitioners here, brought suit in Federal District Court, alleging violations of the Equal Protection Clause, Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and other federal and state statutes. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court dismissed all of petitioners' claims. With respect to the equal protection claim, the District Court held that the racial preferences granted by the Board need not be grounded on a finding of prior discrimination. Instead, the court decided that the racial preferences were permissible under the Equal Protection Clause as an attempt to remedy societal discrimination by providing role models for minority schoolchildren, and upheld the constitutionality of the layoff provision. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, largely adopting the reasoning and language of the District Court.

The Medical School of the University of California at Davis opened in 1968 with an entering class of 50 students. In 1971 the size of the entering class was increased to 100 students, a level at which it remains. The first class contained three Asians but no blacks, no Mexican-Americans, and no American Indians. Over the next two years the faculty devised a special admissions program to increase the representation of disadvantaged students in each Medical School class. The special program consisted of a separate admissions system operating in coordination with the regular admissions process. Under the regular admissions procedure candidates whose overall undergraduate grade point averages fell below 2.5 on a scale of 4.0 were summarily rejected. About one out of six applicants was invited for a personal interview. Following the interviews each candidate was rated on a scale of 1 to 100 by his interviewers and four other members of the admissions committee. The ratings were added together to arrive at each candidate's benchmark score. Since five committee members rated each candidate in 1973 a perfect score was 500. In 1974 six members rated each candidate so that a perfect score was 600. The full committee then reviewed the file and scores of each applicant and made offers of admission on a rolling basis. The special admissions program operated with a separate committee a majority of whom were members of minority groups. Special candidates did not have to meet the 2.5 grade point average cutoff applied to regular applicants. The special committee continued to recommend special applicants until a number prescribed by faculty vote were admitted. While the overall class size was still 50 the prescribed number was 8. In 1973 and 1974 when the class size had doubled to 100 the prescribed number of special admissions also doubled to 16. From the year of the increase in class size through 1974 the special program resulted in the admission of 21 black students 30 Mexican-Americans and 12 Asians for a total of 63 minority students. Over the same period the regular admissions program produced 1 black 6 Mexican-Americans and 37 Asians for a total of 44 minority students. Although disadvantaged whites applied to the special program in large numbers none received an offer of admission through that process. Allan Bakke is a white male who applied to the Davis Medical School in both 1973 and 1974. Despite a strong benchmark score of 468 out of 500 Bakke was rejected. His total was 549 out of 600. Again Bakke's application was rejected. In both years applicants were admitted under the special program with grade point averages MCAT scores and benchmark scores significantly lower than Bakke's. After the second rejection Bakke filed the instant suit in the Superior Court of California. He sought mandatory injunctive and declaratory relief compelling his admission to the Medical School. He alleged that the Medical School's special admissions program operated to exclude him from the school on the basis of his race in violation of his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Art. I § 21 of the California Constitution and § 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. The trial court found that the special program operated as a racial quota because minority applicants in the special program were rated only against one another and 16 places in the class of 100 were reserved for them. The court refused to order Bakke's admission however holding that he had failed to carry his burden of proving that he would have been admitted but for the existence of the special program. The California court accepted the findings of the trial court with respect to the University's program. On this basis the court initially ordered a remand for the purpose of determining whether under the newly allocated burden of proof Bakke would have been admitted to either the 1973 or the 1974 entering class in the absence of the special admissions program. In its petition for rehearing below however the University conceded its inability to carry that burden. The California court thereupon amended its opinion to direct that the trial court enter judgment ordering Bakke's admission to the Medical School. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the important constitutional issue.

Abigail Fisher, a Caucasian applicant, was denied admission to the University of Texas at Austin's 2008 entering class after submitting one of 29,501 applications, of which 12,843 were admitted and 6,715 enrolled. Fisher sued the University and school officials in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging that the University's consideration of race in admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment. The District Court granted summary judgment to the University. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. Prior to 1997 the University considered an applicant's Academic Index reflecting test scores and high school performance along with race. After the Fifth Circuit's 1996 decision in Hopwood v. Texas, the University stopped considering race and substituted a Personal Achievement Index measuring leadership, work experience, awards, extracurricular activities, community service, and socioeconomic factors. The Texas Legislature enacted the Top Ten Percent Law granting automatic admission to the top 10 percent of students at each qualifying high school. Following this Court's decisions in Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, the University adopted its current program in 2004. It included a student's self-identified race from five predefined categories as a component of the Personal Achievement Index score. The Proposal relied on a study of undergraduate classes with five to twenty-four students showing limited minority enrollment and on anecdotal student reports, concluding that the University lacked a critical mass of minority students. Over the dissent of seven judges the Court of Appeals denied rehearing en banc. Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari, which was granted.