|
''Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action'' was a case before the United States Supreme Court questioning whether a state violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by enshrining a ban on race- and sex-based discrimination on public university admissions in its state constitution.〔(Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 572 U.S. ___ (2014) )〕〔(Schuette, Att'y Gen. of MI v. Coalition to Defend, et al.: Question Presented )〕 The case was argued on October 15, 2013 on appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which had ruled in 2012 that the Michigan ban, approved by the state's voters in 2006, was unconstitutional.〔(Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, et al. v. Regents of the University of Michigan, et al. (6th Cir. 2012) )〕 The Sixth Circuit was reversed and the state ban upheld. Justice Kennedy wrote the (plurality opinion ), joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case, presumably because she had worked on the case during her time as United States Solicitor General.〔 ==Background== In 1961, President John F. Kennedy issued an executive order establishing the concept of affirmative action and mandating that federally financed projects ensure that their hiring and employment practices are free of racial bias. With the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin was prohibited. In the first case involving affirmative action in higher education, the Supreme Court ruled in ''Regents of the University of California v. Bakke'' (1978) that the UC Davis medical school admissions program violated the Fourteenth Amendment with the institution of quotas for underrepresented minorities. It did not, however, eliminate race as a factor in university admissions, calling diversity a "compelling interest." The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in ''Hopwood v. Texas'' (5th Cir.1996) that the University of Texas School of Law could not use race as a factor in admissions. This was the first successful legal challenge to racial preferences since ''Bakke''. Two cases in 2003 involving the University of Michigan found that the university's policy of granting extra points to minorities for undergraduate admissions was unconstitutional (''Gratz v. Bollinger'') but that a program which gave holistic consideration for being a certain racial minority, though not an automatic boost, in admissions to the law school was constitutional (''Grutter v. Bollinger''). Michigan voters approved Proposal 2 in 2006 which amended the state's constitution to make affirmative action illegal in public employment, public education or public contracting purposes, except for actions mandated by federal law or that are necessary in order for an institution to receive federal funding.〔(Mich. Const., Art. I, sec. 26 )〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|