| Schuette v. BAMN | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued October 15, 2013 Decided April 22, 2014 | |
| Full case name | Schuette, Attorney General of Michigan v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigration Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) et al. |
| Docket no. | 12-682 |
| Citations | 572 U.S. 291 (more) 134 S. Ct. 1623; 188 L. Ed. 2d 613 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 539 F. Supp. 2d 924 (E.D. Mich. 2008); 539 F. Supp. 2d 960 (E.D. Mich. 2008); 592 F. Supp. 2d 948 (E.D. Mich. 2008); 652 F.3d 607 (6th Cir. 2011); 701 F.3d 466 (6th Cir. 2012); cert. granted, 568 U.S. 1249 (2013). |
| Holding | |
| Michigan's Proposal 2, banning race-based affirmative action in state universities, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Plurality | Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Alito |
| Concurrence | Roberts |
| Concurrence | Scalia (in judgment), joined by Thomas |
| Concurrence | Breyer (in judgment) |
| Dissent | Sotomayor, joined by Ginsburg |
| Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV | |
Schuette v. BAMN, 572 U.S. 291 (2014), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning affirmative action and race- and sex-based discrimination in public university admissions. In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause does not prevent states from enacting bans on affirmative action in education.
The case arose after Michigan voters approved the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which amended the state constitution to make affirmative action illegal in public employment and public education. In a plurality opinion joined by two other justices, Justice Anthony Kennedy held that the ban on affirmative action was constitutional. Kennedy wrote that "[t]here is no authority in the Constitution of the United States or in this Court's precedents for the Judiciary to set aside Michigan laws that commit this policy determination to the voters." Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Stephen Breyer concurred in the result but filed or joined separate opinions. In her dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the voters of Michigan had "changed the basic rules of the political process in that State in a manner that uniquely disadvantaged racial minorities."