What was John Paul Stevens' opinion on Gratz v Bollinger?

Answer 1

Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 US 244 (2003)

Gratz was a class action suit in which the nominal petitioners sought to change (through injunctive relief) the Freshman entrance requirements the University of Michigan College of Literature, Science and the Arts (LSA) used to ensure racial diversity.

The petitioners held that Michigan's automatic granting of 20 points (on a 100 point scale) to all minority applicants was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause and/or of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because the policy discriminated against non-minority applicants. The 20-point addition virtually guaranteed admission to any group of students identified as under-represented at the University, while denying entrance to white students who may have had higher grades and/or test scores.

In a 6-3 vote, the majority held that the University of Michigan's 20-point policy was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause and in violation of Title VI and § 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The case was reversed in part and remanded to the lower court for disposition.

Justice Stevens' Dissent

Justice Stevens' dissent was based entirely on procedural issues, not the facts of the case. Stevens didn't address the issue of racial preference the petitioners raised because he believed the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case; the petitioners lacked standing to bring the case; and the petition should have been dismissed without being heard.

Stevens argued that neither Jennifer Gratz nor Patrick Hamacher, the nominal petitioners, had standing to bring a class action suit for forward-looking injunctive relief because neither had a personal stake in the outcome of the case, as required under Article III of the Constitution.

Gratz, after being denied admission to the University of Michigan in 1994, has subsequently applied to and graduated from the University of Michigan at Dearborn in 1999.

Patrick Hamacher attended Michigan State after being wait-listed for Freshman admission at the University of Michigan for the 1997-1998 school year. Hamacher graduated from Michigan State in 2001. Part of Hamacher's claim was that he could not transfer to the University of Michigan due to the entrance requirement, although school records showed he had never attempted to transfer, and further, that transfer requirements were different from Freshman entrance requirements. According to Stevens, this made Hamacher's claim for injunctive relief hypothetical or conjectural. Further, the transfer criteria were not part of the case.

Since Gratz and Hamacher had already graduated from their respective colleges, the case was moot. Stevens held that both had standing to seek damages, but not an injunction against future Freshman entrance requirements.

Stevens also noted that a person without standing in a cause that doesn't involve his or her personal interestcannot bring suit on behalf of members of a class because the petitioners had no "injury in fact," even if the class included people who may legitimately benefit from the outcome of the case.

In Justice Stevens' opinion, the petition should have been dismissed without a hearing.