The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Wednesday, October 12, 1977
Decision: Monday, June 26, 1978
Issues: Civil Rights, Affirmative Action
Categories: affirmative action, discrimination, education, race, race discrimination

Advocates

Archibald Cox (Argued the cause for the petitioner)
Reynold H. Colvin (Argued the cause for the respondent)
Wade H. McCree (Argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae)

Facts of the Case

Allan Bakke, a thirty-five-year-old white man, had twice applied for admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis. He was rejected both times. The school reserved sixteen places in each entering class of one hundred for "qualified" minorities, as part of the university's affirmative action program, in an effort to redress longstanding, unfair minority exclusions from the medical profession. Bakke's qualifications (college GPA and test scores) exceeded those of any of the minority students admitted in the two years Bakke's applications were rejected. Bakke contended, first in the California courts, then in the Supreme Court, that he was excluded from admission solely on the basis of race.

Question

Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's application for admission to its medical school?

Conclusion

No and yes. There was no single majority opinion. Four of the justices contended that any racial quota system supported by government violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., agreed, casting the deciding vote ordering the medical school to admit Bakke. However, in his opinion, Powell argued that the rigid use of racial quotas as employed at the school violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The remaining four justices held that the use of race as a criterion in admissions decisions in higher education was constitutionally permissible. Powell joined that opinion as well, contending that the use of race was permissible as one of several admission criteria. So, the Court managed to minimize white opposition to the goal of equality (by finding for Bakke) while extending gains for racial minorities through affirmative action.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority)

Sort by Ideology
(More information here)
Decision: 5 votes for Regents of the University of California, 4 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Equal Protection
Voted with the majority, joined Stevens' concurrence
Burger
Co-authored a dissent
Brennan
Voted with the majority, joined Stevens' concurrence
Stewart
Wrote a dissent, joined another dissent
White
Wrote a dissent, joined another dissent
Marshall
Wrote a dissent, joined another dissent
Blackmun
Wrote the judgment of the Court
Powell
Voted with the majority, joined Stevens' concurrence
Rehnquist
Wrote a special concurrence
Stevens
Judgment of the Court by Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr.

Split Vote (by Seniority)

Sort by Ideology
(More information here)
Legal Provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI
Voted with the minority, joined Stevens' dissent
Burger
Co-authored a special concurrence
Brennan
Voted with the minority, joined Stevens' dissent
Stewart
Wrote a special concurrence, joined another concurrence
White
Wrote a special concurrence, joined another concurrence
Marshall
Wrote a special concurrence, joined another concurrence
Blackmun
Wrote the judgment of the Court
Powell
Voted with the minority, joined Stevens' dissent
Rehnquist
Wrote a dissent
Stevens
Judgment of the Court by Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr.

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_811/>
(last visited ).