1978
Regents of University of California v Bakke, 438 U.S. 265. First affirmative action case decided by U.S. Supreme Court. No majority opinion. Upholds California Supreme Court order striking down medical school quotas for minority applicants but reverses part of that order prohibiting any consideration of race. A majority of the Court does agree that even programs designed for a "benign purpose" to benefit racial minorities must be examined under the same "strict scrutiny' that would be applied to program that benefitted whites. Under strict scrutiny, any program that takes race into account must serve a "compelling interest" and must be "narrowly tailored" to achieve that interest. Justice Powell is the swing vote; writing only for himself, he says that diversity in higher education can be a compelling interest sufficient to justify consideration of race but decides that the medical school program is not narrowly tailored to achieve diversity.
1980
Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448. S. Ct upholds Congressional affirmative action program for government contracts.
1986
Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U.S. 267 S.Ct. strikes down affirmative action program adopted by local school board under which white teacher with greater seniority was laid off instead of black teacher
1989
City of Richmond v Croson, 488 U.S. 469 S.Ct. strikes down affirmative action program for government contracts adopted by city; not narrowly tailored to address present or past discrimination
1995
Adarand Constructors v Pena, 515 U.S. 200. Even Congressionally approved affirmative action programs must meet "strict scrutiny." Challenge to Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program to assist minority contractors in getting contracts for federally funded highway projects sent back to lower courts for application of strict scrutiny standard.
1996
Hopwood v Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir.). Court of Appeals for Fifth Circuit (Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi) strikes down University of Texas law school admission program. Interprets Croson and Adarand decisions as saying that the only compelling interest that justifies affirmative action is correcting effects of past or present discrimination; Justice Powell's opinion in Bakke that diversity can be a compelling interest should not be considered an authoritative decision by the Supreme Court.
California voters approve Proposition 209, amending the state constitution to prohibit affirmative action in public education, employment or contracting.
Supreme Court refuses to review Hopwood decision.
1997
City of Houston voters reject anti-affirmative action proposal
1998
Congress reauthorizes modified DBE program as part of President's Clinton's "mend it, don't end it" approach to affirmative action
State of Washington voters approve anti-affirmative action proposal.
2000
Smith v University of Washington Law School, 233 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir.), disagrees with Hopwood case, diversity still a justification for affirmative action
In a continuation of the Adarand case, the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upholds the modified DBE program as narrowly tailored to address nationwide discrimination against minority highway contractors
2001
Gratz v. Bollinger, 122 F. Supp.2d 811 (E.D. Mich) Federal judge in Detroit disagrees with Hopwood case and upholds University of Michigan undergraduate admission program as constitutional.
Grutter v. Bollinger, 137 F.Supp. 822 (E.D. Mich.) Different federal judge in Detroit agrees with Hopwood case; University of Michigan law school admission program is unconstitutional.
Johnson v. Regents of the University of Georgia, 263 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir.) Without deciding whether Hopwood case is right, Court of Appeals strikes down UGA undergraduate admission program as not narrowly tailored to achieve diversity.
Supreme Court decides to review the 11th Circuit decision in Adarand upholding the DBE program and then, after oral argument, decides NOT to review the decision, leaving the 11th Circuit decision in effect
2002
May 14: Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit by 5-4 vote reverses trial court in Grutter case; disagreeing with Hopwood, says that continued validity of Justice Powell's opinion in Bakke makes Michigan Law School program constitutional. Although this court heard oral arguments in Gratz at the same time, it issues no decision about the undergraduate admission program.
December 2: S. Ct. decides to review both Michigan cases, even though Court of Appeals hasn't decided Gratz yet.
2003
January 16: Bush administration files friend of the court brief opposing the University of Michigan in both cases. Does NOT ask Court to decide whether diversity is a compelling interest (i.e. to accept or reject Justice Powell's opinion in Bakke); instead argues that University of Michigan programs are not narrowly tailored because race-neutral methods are available to achieve diversity.
April 1: Oral argument for both Michigan cases.
June 23: S. Ct. rules FOR the law school, 123 S.Ct. 2325 and AGAINST the undergraduate program, 123 S.Ct. 2411