WASHINGTON (CN) - The ban against affirmative action at Michigan public colleges and universities and in government hiring is a matter of states' rights, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.
It was the admissions systems at the University of Michigan, at both the undergraduate and law school level, that first drew the Supreme Court's attention to affirmative action in 2003. In two decisions, the court said "universities cannot establish quotas for members of certain racial groups," but that race or ethnicity could be used "more flexibly as a 'plus' factor in the context of individualized consideration."
Michigan voters approved a statewide ballot proposal three years later "to prohibit all sex- and race-based preferences in public education, public employment, and public contracting."
Once passed, Article I, Section 26, of the Michigan Constitution, eliminated the consideration of "race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin" in individualized admissions decisions for Michigan's public colleges and universities. Yet, no other admissions criteria - for example, grades, athletic ability, or family alumni connections - suffered the same fate.
For public colleges and universities or their boards to revisit the issue of affirmative action, and only that issue, voters would first have to repeal or modify the amendment.
Several interest groups and individuals immediately sued then-Gov. Jennifer Granholm and the governing boards of various state schools. The Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigration Rights and Fight for Equality said Proposal 2 violated the U.S. Constitution and federal statutory law.
A group of University of Michigan faculty members, prospective and current students filed a similar federal complaint against Gov. Granholm. Their case was consolidated with that of an applicant to the University of Michigan Law School and Toward a Fair Michigan, a nonprofit corporation formed to ensure implementation of Proposal 2.
In both cases, Michigan's then-Attorney General Michael Cox intervened and replaced Granholm as the representative of the state.
After a 2-1 ruling in the 6th Circuit for the amendment's opponents, the full court again sided against the state.
The Supreme Court took up the case last year, noting that Justice Elena Kagan would not participate in the consideration or decision of the case.
A plurality of the court reversed Tuesday, with three separate concurring opinions to the lone dissent from Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
"The question here concerns not the permissibility of race-conscious admissions policies under the Constitution but whether, and in what manner, voters in the states may choose to prohibit the consideration of racial preferences in governmental decisions, in particular with respect to school admissions," according to the lead opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined only by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.
They noted that Proposal 2 merely reflects part of "the national dialogue regarding the wisdom and practicality of race-conscious admissions policies in higher education."
"The respondents in this case insist that a difficult question of public policy must be taken from the reach of the voters, and thus removed from the realm of public discussion, dialogue, and debate in an election campaign," Kennedy wrote.
But the plurality said that position raises "serious First Amendment implications" and "is inconsistent with the underlying premises of a responsible, functioning democracy."