NEWS
Michigan center asks Supreme Court to hear related race admissions case
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Megan Hayes:
Related Stories:
- It's affirmative: affirmative action goes to Supreme Court (December 3, 2002)
- Supreme Court may hear case on race-based admissions (September 5, 2002)
- UM challenges affirmative-action appeal (September 23, 2002)
- Court broadens Open Records Law (July 3, 2002)
- Supreme Court declines to hear affirmative-action case (October 5, 2005)
by Megan Hayes
Thursday, October 3, 2002
(U-WIRE) ANN ARBOR, Mich. — In a rare legal move, the Center for Individual Rights petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday to hear Gratz v. Bollinger, which has not been ruled on by the appeals court, in the hopes that the case may appear in front of the Court alongside the other University of Michigan admissions case, Grutter v. Bollinger.
The university is currently awaiting a decision from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Gratz v. Bollinger, which calls into question the university’s use of race as a factor in admissions in the College of Literature, Science and the Arts.
A decision in the case Grutter v. Bollinger, which addresses the Law School’s admissions policy, was made by the 6th Circuit last May in favor of the university.
If the Supreme Court grants CIR’s petition, the decision would bypass a still-pending court of appeals ruling and move the case directly to argument at the Supreme Court level.
“This is exactly the set of circumstances where the Supreme Court has granted such (review) in the past,” Curt Levey, director of legal and public affairs for the Washington-based CIR, said. He said the need for expediency stems from the fact that students nationwide should not have to wait to hear whether race will be a factor in admissions.
He also said it was very important that the cases be argued together.
“Our concern is that we couldn’t wait any longer and have the case heard this term,” he said.
Levey said in most cases it is unusual for litigants who have won at the appellate court level to desire for the Supreme Court to hear their case, but added that this is not a normal case.
“The university itself has said [the use of race in admissions] is an issue of national importance,” Levey said.
He added that the university’s desire for the Supreme Court to deny certiorari in the Law School admissions case reflects a lack of confidence on their part.
“Observers don’t think they’re likely to win and I think they know that,” Levey said.
Krislov said in spite of Tuesday’s petition, the university still opposes a Supreme Court granting of certiorari in either or both cases.
“We won 100 percent at the last level,” he said. “We want to keep that victory — we don’t want to see that victory eroded.”
If the Supreme Court decides to hear the undergraduate case, Krislov said he believes there is some benefit to looking at the two admissions cases simultaneously, as CIR desires.
“It may help provide a fuller picture,” he said, adding that the evidence in both cases is complementary.
“Obviously we care deeply about this and believe diversity is necessary to our core mission.”
“There are educational benefits to diversity in both stages of education,” he said. “Whether it is in the Supreme Court or in the 6th Circuit, we think we’ll win.”
Robert Sedler, a constitutional law professor at Wayne State University, said under Rule 10, one of the rules governing Supreme Court standards of judicial review, the Court may grant a petition to hear a case still under review and awaiting judgment in the court of appeals. He said petitions of this nature are extremely rare. The last time it has done so was in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.
Sedler said there are many possible ways for the Supreme Court to act, the most likely of which would be to grant CIR’s request or to wait to rule on it until it made its decision in the Law School case.
“When time is of the essence in a case, the parties may ask the Supreme Court to take the case and bypass the 6th Circuit,” Georgetown University professor Susan Bloch said.
She said a petition of this nature is not asked for or granted often by the Supreme Court.
Levy said the fact that the case holds national importance creates a need for it to keep moving forward toward the Supreme Court, a point that he feels the university should take into consideration.
“It’s not too late for them to see the light and see that the Supreme Court should hear both cases,” he said. “They should come out and say that this is an issue of national importance and should be decided by the Supreme Court in a uniform ruling.”
