Regents of University of California v. Bakke, No. 76-811

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtPOWELL; Mr. Justice BRENNAN, Mr. Justice WHITE; POWELL; For the reasons stated in the following opinion, I believe that so much of the judgment of the California court as holds petitioner's special admissions program unlawful and directs that respond
Citation57 L.Ed.2d 750,98 S.Ct. 2733,438 U.S. 265
PartiesREGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Petitioner, v. Allan BAKKE
Docket NumberNo. 76-811
Decision Date28 June 1978

438 U.S. 265
98 S.Ct. 2733
57 L.Ed.2d 750
REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Petitioner,

v.

Allan BAKKE.

No. 76-811.
Argued Oct. 12, 1977.
Decided June 28, 1978.
Syllabus

The Medical School of the University of California at Davis (hereinafter Davis) had two admissions programs for the entering class of 100 students—the regular admissions program and the special admissions program. Under the regular procedure, candidates whose overall undergraduate grade point averages fell below 2.5 on a scale of 4.0 were summarily rejected. About one out of six applicants was then given an interview, following which he was rated on a scale of 1 to 100 by each of the committee members (five in 1973 and six in 1974), his rating being based on the interviewers' summaries, his overall grade point average, his science courses grade point average, his Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT) scores, letters of recommendation, extracurricular activities, and other biographical data, all of which resulted in a total "benchmark score." The full admissions committee then made offers of admission on the basis of their review of the applicant's file and his score, considering and acting upon applications as they were received. The committee chairman was responsible for placing names on the waiting list and had discretion to include persons with "special skills." A separate committee, a majority of whom were members of minority groups, operated the special admissions program. The 1973 and 1974 application forms, respectively, as ed candidates whether they wished to be considered as "economically and/or educationally disadvantaged" applicants and members of a "minority group" (blacks, Chicanos, Asians, American Indians). If an applicant of a minority group was found to be "disadvantaged," he would be rated in a manner similar to the one employed by the general admissions committee. Special candidates, however, did not have to meet the 2.5 grade point cutoff and were not ranked against candidates in the general admissions process. About one-fifth of the special applicants were invited for interviews in 1973 and 1974, following which they were given benchmark scores, and the top choices were then given to the general admissions committee, which could reject special candidates for failure to meet course requirements or other specific deficiencies. The special committee continued to recommend candidates until 16 special admission selections had been made. During a four-year period 63 minority

Page 266

students were admitted to Davis under the special program and 44 under the general program. No disadvantaged whites were admitted under the special program, though many applied. Respondent, a white male, applied to Davis in 1973 and 1974, in both years being considered only under the general admissions program. Though he had a 468 out of 500 score in 1973, he was rejected since no general applicants with scores less than 470 were being accepted after respondent's application, which was filed late in the year, had been processed and completed. At that time four special admission slots were still unfilled. In 1974 respondent applied early, and though he had a total score of 549 out of 600, he was again rejected. In neither year was his name placed on the discretionary waiting list. In both years special applicants were admitted with significantly lower scores than respondent's. After his second rejection, respondent filed this action in state court for mandatory, injunctive, and declaratory relief to compel his admission to Davis, alleging that the special admissions program operated to exclude him on the basis of his race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a provision of the California Constitution, and § 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which provides, inter alia, that no person shall on the ground of race or color be excluded from participating in any program receiving federal financial assistance. Petitioner cross-claimed for a declaration that its special admissions program was lawful. The trial court found that the special program operated as a racial quota, because minority applicants in that program were rated only against one another, and 16 places in the class of 100 were reserved for them. Declaring that petitioner could not take race into account in making admissions decisions, the program was held to violate the Federal and State Constitutions and Title VI. Respondent's admission was not ordered, however, for lack of proof that he would have been admitted but for the special program. The California Supreme Court, applying a strict-scrutiny standard, concluded that the special admissions program was not the least intrusive means of achieving the goals of the admittedly compelling state interests of integrating the medical profession and increasing the number of doctors willing to serve minority patients. Without passing on the state constitutional or federal statutory grounds the court held that petitioner's special admissions program violated the Equal Protection Clause. Since petitioner could not satisfy its burden of demonstrating that respondent, absent the special program, would not have been admitted, the court ordered his admission to Davis.

Held: The judgment below is affirmed insofar as it orders respondent's admission to Davis and invalidates petitioner's special admissions pro-

Page 267

gram, but is reversed insofar as it prohibits petitioner from taking race into account as a factor in its future admissions decisions.

18 Cal.3d 34, 132 Cal.Rptr. 680, 553 P.2d 1152, affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Mr. Justice POWELL concluded:

1. Title VI proscribes only those racial classifications that would violate the Equal Protection Clause if employed by a State or its agencies. Pp. 281-287.

2. Racial and ethnic classifications of any sort are inherently suspect and call for the most exacting judicial scrutiny. While the goal of achieving a diverse student body is sufficiently compelling to justify consideration of race in admissions decisions under some circumstances, petitioner's special admissions program, which forecloses consideration to persons like respondent, is unnecessary to the achievement of this compelling goal and therefore invalid under the Equal Protection Clause. Pp. 287-320.

3. Since petitioner could not satisfy its burden of proving that respondent would not have been admitted even if there had been no special admissions program, he must be admitted. P. 320.

Mr. Justice BRENNAN, Mr. Justice WHITE, Mr. Justice MARSHALL, and Mr. Justice BLACKMUN concluded:

1. Title VI proscribes only those racial classifications that would violate the Equal Protection Clause if employed by a State or its agencies. Pp. 328-355.

2. Racial classifications call for strict judicial scrutiny. Nonetheless, the purpose of overcoming substantial, chronic minority underrepresentation in the medical profession is sufficiently important to justify petitioner's remedial use of race. Thus, the judgment below must be reversed in that it prohibits race from being used as a factor in university admissions. Pp. 355-379.

Mr. Justice STEVENS, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr. Justice STEWART, and Mr. Justice REHNQUIST, being of the view that whether race can ever be a factor in an admissions policy is not an issue here; that Title VI applies; and that respondent was excluded from Davis in violation of Title VI, concurs in the Court's judgment insofar as it affirms the judgment of the court below ordering respondent admitted to Davis. Pp. 408-421.

Page 268

Archibald Cox, Cambridge, Mass., for petitioner.

Sol. Gen. Wade H. McCree, Jr., Washington, D. C., for United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court.

Reynold H. Colvin, San Francisco, Cal., for respondent.

[Amicus Curiae Information from pages 268-270 intentionally omitted]

Page 269

Mr. Justice POWELL announced the judgment of the Court.

This case presents a challenge to the special admissions program of the petitioner, the Medical School of the University of California at Davis, which is designed to assure the admis-

Page 270

sion of a specified number of students from certain minority groups. The Superior Court of California sustained respondent's challenge, holding that petitioner's program violated the California Constitution, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court enjoined petitioner from considering respondent's race or the race of any other applicant in making admissions decisions. It refused, however, to order respondent's admission to the Medical School, holding that he had not carried his burden of proving that he would have been admitted but for the constitutional and statutory violations. The Supreme Court of California affirmed those portions of the trial court's judgment declaring the special admissions program unlawful and enjoining petitioner from considering the race of any appli-

Page 271

cant.** It modified that portion of the judgment denying respondent's requested injunction and directed the trial court to order his admission.

For the reasons stated in the following opinion, I believe that so much of the judgment of the California court as holds petitioner's special admissions program unlawful and directs that respondent be admitted to the Medical School must be affirmed. For the reasons expressed in a separate opinion, my Brothers THE CHIEF JUSTICE, Mr. Justice STEWART, Mr. Justice REHNQUIST and Mr. Justice STEVENS concur in this judgment.

** Mr. Justice STEVENS views the judgment of the California court as limited to prohibiting the consideration of race only in passing upon Bakke's application. Post, at 408-411. It must be remembered, however, that petitioner here cross-complained in the trial court for a declaratory judgment that its...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1233 practice notes
  • Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, California, No. 85-1129
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 25, 1987
    ...Tr. 68. The Plan thus resembles the "Harvard Plan" approvingly noted by Justice POWELL in Regents of University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 316-319, 98 S.Ct. 2733, 2761-2763, 57 L.Ed.2d 750 (1978), which considers race along with other criteria in determining admission to the coll......
  • Hull v. Cason
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • January 7, 1981
    ...action, but there is broad dispute as to the means of its implementation. (See, e. g., University of California Regents v. Bakke (1978) 438 U.S. 265, 98 S.Ct. 2733, 57 L.Ed.2d 750; Price v. Civil Service Com. (1980), 26 Cal.3d 257, 161 Cal.Rptr. 475, 604 P.2d 1365 (petn. for cert. filed Jun......
  • BEG Invs., LLC v. Alberti, Civil Action No.: 13–cv–0182 RC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • March 24, 2015
    ...committed by an institution that accepts federal funds also constitutes a violation of Title VI”); Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 287, 98 S.Ct. 2733, 57 L.Ed.2d 750 (1978) (“Title VI must be held to proscribe only those racial classifications that would violate the Equal P......
  • Planned Parenthood of Ind. & Ky., Inc. v. Box, No. 17-2428
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • March 12, 2021
    ...S.Ct. 2325 (discussing division among federal courts of appeals in applying Marks to Regents of the University of California v. Bakke , 438 U.S. 265, 98 S.Ct. 2733, 57 L.Ed.2d 750 (1978) ); Nichols , 511 U.S. at 745, 114 S.Ct. 1921 (discussing division among state and federal courts in appl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1175 cases
  • Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, California, No. 85-1129
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 25, 1987
    ...Tr. 68. The Plan thus resembles the "Harvard Plan" approvingly noted by Justice POWELL in Regents of University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 316-319, 98 S.Ct. 2733, 2761-2763, 57 L.Ed.2d 750 (1978), which considers race along with other criteria in determining admission to the coll......
  • Hull v. Cason
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • January 7, 1981
    ...action, but there is broad dispute as to the means of its implementation. (See, e. g., University of California Regents v. Bakke (1978) 438 U.S. 265, 98 S.Ct. 2733, 57 L.Ed.2d 750; Price v. Civil Service Com. (1980), 26 Cal.3d 257, 161 Cal.Rptr. 475, 604 P.2d 1365 (petn. for cert. filed Jun......
  • BEG Invs., LLC v. Alberti, Civil Action No.: 13–cv–0182 RC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • March 24, 2015
    ...committed by an institution that accepts federal funds also constitutes a violation of Title VI”); Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 287, 98 S.Ct. 2733, 57 L.Ed.2d 750 (1978) (“Title VI must be held to proscribe only those racial classifications that would violate the Equal P......
  • Planned Parenthood of Ind. & Ky., Inc. v. Box, No. 17-2428
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • March 12, 2021
    ...S.Ct. 2325 (discussing division among federal courts of appeals in applying Marks to Regents of the University of California v. Bakke , 438 U.S. 265, 98 S.Ct. 2733, 57 L.Ed.2d 750 (1978) ); Nichols , 511 U.S. at 745, 114 S.Ct. 1921 (discussing division among state and federal courts in appl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 firm's commentaries
  • Affirmative Action: The Possible K-12 Impacts of the Supreme Court Cases Involving Harvard and UNC
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • November 15, 2022
    ...and at least implicitly both prior and subsequent Supreme Court precedents, including Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1878), Fischer v. University of Texas at Austin, 570 U.S. 297 (2013), and Fischer v. the University of Texas at Austin, 579 U.S. 365 (2016), ......
  • SFFA V. UNC And SFFA V. Harvard: Navigating The Impact Across All Industries
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • October 24, 2022
    ...to overrule its landmark decisions in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), and hold that consideration of race or ethnicity in admissions violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Titl......
  • Affirmative Action: What Did We Learn From The Oral Argument And What's Next?
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • November 3, 2022
    ...efficacy, and analyze potential alternative means of achieving the same objectives. Footnotes 1 See Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265; Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 328 (2003); Fisher v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin, 579 U.S. 365, 377 (2016). 2 Grutter, 539 U.S. 328 (2003......
  • Proskauer Files Amicus Brief in Pending Supreme Court Affirmative Action Cases
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • August 25, 2022
    ...invalidate those policies and overrule a long line of Supreme Court precedent, starting with Regents of University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), and reaffirmed in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), and Fisher v. University of Texas, 579 U.S. 365 (2016). The amicus bri......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
38 books & journal articles
  • Addressing the problem: the judicial branches
    • United States
    • Environmental justice: legal theory and practice - second edition
    • May 23, 2012
    ...Steelworkers of America v. Weber , 443 U.S. 193, 99 S. Ct. 2721, 61 L. Ed. 2d 480 (1979); Regents of University of California v. Bakke , 438 U.S. 265, 98 S. Ct. 2733, 57 L. Ed. 2d 750 (1978); Hazelwood School District v. United States , 433 U.S. 299, 97 S. Ct. 2736, 53 L. Ed. 2d 768 (1977);......
  • Indigenous Subjects.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 131 Nbr. 8, June 2022
    • June 1, 2022
    ...and arguing that such race-conscious remedies should not be reviewed under strict scrutiny); Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 304 n.42 (1978) (opinion of Powell, J.) (discussing the petitioner's argument that Mancari was an example of a court reviewing benign racial clas......
  • Permits and state permit programs
    • United States
    • Introduction to environmental law: cases and materials on water pollution control - 2d Edition
    • July 23, 2017
    ...42 U.S.C. § 2000d. But the Court held that section 601 prohibits only intentional discrimination, Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke , 438 U.S. 265 (1978), and we have already discussed the diiculty of proving intentional discrimi- Permits and State Permit Programs 435 nation where facially ......
  • Addressing the Problem: The Judicial Branches
    • United States
    • Environmental justice: legal theory and practice. 3rd Edition
    • November 20, 2014
    ...Steelworkers of America v. Weber , 443 U.S. 193, 99 S. Ct. 2721, 61 L. Ed. 2d 480 (1979); Regents of University of California v. Bakke , 438 U.S. 265, 98 S. Ct. 2733, 57 L. Ed. 2d 750 (1978); Hazelwood School District v. United States , 433 U.S. 299, 97 S. Ct. 2736, 53 L. Ed. 2d 768 (1977);......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT