Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
Case Overview
CITATION
ARGUED ON
DECIDED ON
DECIDED BY
OVERRULED BY
438 U.S. 265
October 12, 1977
June 28, 1978
Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023)
Legal Issue
Does the University of California’s specific race-based admissions program violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, can race be considered as a factor in an admissions program?
Holding
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the University of California’s specific race-based admissions program, and Bakke shall be admitted.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permits race to be one factor among many others that are considered in an admissions program.
Allan Bakke attending his first day at the UC Davis Medical School | Credit: Walt Zeboski/AP, CNN
Background
The University of California at Davis Medical School had two admissions tracks for its incoming class of 100 students: a general admissions program and a special admissions program. The special program reserved 16 spots for “disadvantaged” applicants from certain minority groups (Black, Chicano, Asian, American Indian), who were evaluated by a separate committee and were not required to meet the same grade point cutoff as general applicants. During a four-year period, 63 minority students were admitted under the special program and 44 under the general program. No disadvantaged white applicants were admitted through the special program, though many applied. Allan Bakke, a white male, applied in 1973 and 1974, but was rejected both years, despite strong academic credentials that exceeded many special admittees’ scores. He was never considered for the special program or waitlisted, while minority applicants with lower scores were admitted in his place.
After his second rejection, Bakke sued in California state court, alleging violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the California Constitution, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by institutions receiving federal funding. The trial court held the special admissions program unconstitutional and enjoined the university from considering race in admissions but declined to order Bakke’s admission. On appeal, the California Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny, found that the special program was not the least intrusive means to achieve the university’s stated compelling interests, and ordered Bakke’s admission. The University of California appealed to the United States Supreme Court
Summary
(1) 5 - 4 decision for Bakke
Regents
Blackmun
Marshall
Powell
Burger
Stevens
Bakke
Rehnquist
White
Stewart
Brennan
(2) 5 - 4 decision for the Regents of the University of California
Regents
Bakke
Blackmun
Rehnquist
Marshall
White
Stewart
Burger
Brennan
Powell
Stevens
Opinion of the Court
Writing for the Court, Justice Lewis Powell began by establishing the level of scrutiny that should apply in the case. Justice Powell affirmed that “racial and ethnic classifications of any sort are inherently suspect and call for the most exacting judicial scrutiny”. He rejected the argument that strict scrutiny is limited to “discrete and insular minorities” and held that the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantees extend to all people. He further explained that “the guarantee of equal protection cannot mean one thing when applied to one individual and something else when applied to a person of another color. If both are not accorded the same protection, then it is not equal.” Applying this standard to the University of California, Justice Powell characterized the University’s special admissions program as a clear racial classification, regardless of whether it was labeled a “quota” or a “goal.” Justice Powell reasoned that if “there existed a pool of at least minimally qualified minority applicants to fill the 16 special admissions seats, white applicants could compete only for 84 seats in the entering class, rather than the 100 open to minority applicants” He held “preferring members of any one group for no reason other than race or ethnic origin is discrimination for its own sake. This the Constitution forbids.” He further added that the special admissions program failed to treat applicants as individuals, stating that “[t]he fatal flaw in petitioner's preferential program is its disregard of individual rights as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Ultimately, Justice Powell affirmed the California Supreme Court’s judgment invalidating the University of California’s special admissions program and ordering Bakke’s admission, but reversed it to the extent that it enjoined any consideration of race in admissions. He explained, “[i]n enjoining petitioner from ever considering the race of any applicant, however, the courts below failed to recognize that the State has a substantial interest that legitimately may be served by a properly devised admissions program involving the competitive consideration of race and ethnic origin.”
Opinion by Justice Brennan, White, Marshall, and Blackmun
In a separate opinion, Justices William Brennan, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, and Harry Blackmun agreed that the result should permit some forms of race-conscious admissions and concurred in part with Justice Powell’s conclusion that Title VI’s scope equals that of the Equal Protection Clause. However, the Justices argued that proper remedial purposes, such as remedying the effects of past discrimination, justify the use of race as an admissions factor, whether or not the university itself was proven to have discriminated previously. They wrote, “Government may take race into account when it acts not to demean or insult any racial group, but to remedy disadvantages cast on minorities by past racial prejudice...”
The Justices asserted that Bakke’s injury, as a white person denied entry in a remedial program, was not “comparable to that imposed upon racial minorities by exclusion or separation on grounds of race,” and that the University’s special admissions program was a permissible effort to bring underrepresented groups into public institutions. They stated, “[i]n order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently. We cannot—we dare not—let the Equal Protection Clause perpetuate racial supremacy.”
Opinion by Justice Blackmun
In a brief opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun stressed the ongoing need for affirmative action as a means of remedying historical discrimination and moving toward a society where such measures would no longer be needed. He explained, “[a]t least until the early 1970’s, apparently only a very small number, less than 2%, of the physicians, attorneys, and medical and law students in the United States were members of what we now refer to as minority groups. If ways are not found to remedy that situation, the country can never achieve its professed goal of a society that is not race conscious.”
Opinion by Justice White
In a brief opinion, Justice Byron White separately addressed the existence of a private cause of action under Title VI, arguing that a private cause of action was not intended by Congress and that the administrative remedies spelled out in the statute should have been followed. However, he ultimately joined the plurality’s reasoning in agreeing that Bakke should be admitted.
Opinion by Justice Stevens
In a separate opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens emphasized the narrow scope of the case. Justice Stevens contended the sole question was whether the University of California’s special admissions program violated federal law, specifically Title VI, since the statute plainly forbade “exclusion” from federally funded programs on the basis of race. He explained that, “[r]ace cannot be the basis of excluding anyone from participation in a federally funded program.” Noting the clear statutory violation, Justice Stevens saw no need to address the constitutional question, stating that “[i]f the state court was correct in its view that the University’s special program was illegal, and that Bakke was therefore unlawfully excluded from the Medical School because of his race, we should affirm its judgment, regardless of our views about the legality of admissions programs that are not now before the Court.” Justice Stevens concluded that the judgment ordering Bakke’s admission should be affirmed as a straightforward application of the statutory law, but declined to offer any broader judgment about the constitutionality of other race-conscious admissions programs.