Regents of UC v. Bakke (1978)
- Docket
- HIST-1978-001
- Decided
- 1978-06-28
- Category
- Civil Rights
- Public Good score
- 68 / 100
- Framers' Intent score
- 54 / 100
Summary
Allowed race to be one factor in college admissions but struck down racial quotas. First major affirmative action decision.
Case Brief
Facts
The University of California, Davis School of Medicine set aside 16 of 100 seats in each entering class for applicants in a “special admissions” program limited to certain minority groups. Allan Bakke, a white applicant, applied twice and was rejected both times, despite having test scores and grades higher than some applicants admitted through the special program. Bakke alleged that the set-aside denied him admission because of race. He sought admission and an injunction against the use of race in admissions decisions.
Procedural History
Bakke sued in California state court, asserting violations of the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The California Supreme Court held the set-aside unlawful and ordered Bakke admitted, concluding that any consideration of race was impermissible. The Regents sought review, and the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the constitutionality of the admissions program and the proper interpretation of Title VI in this context.
Issue
Do the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and/or Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 permit a public medical school to use race in admissions, including reserving a fixed number of seats for minority applicants?
Holding
The Court held that the Davis program’s fixed racial set-aside (quota) violated the Equal Protection Clause and was not permitted under Title VI, so Bakke’s admission order was affirmed. However, the Court also held that race may be considered as one factor among others in an individualized admissions process to pursue the educational benefits of diversity.
Rule
Racial classifications by a state actor are subject to strict scrutiny: they must be justified by a compelling governmental interest and narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. Achieving the educational benefits of a diverse student body can be a compelling interest, but rigid quotas or set-asides that reserve seats based solely on race are not narrowly tailored. A program that considers race as a “plus” factor within individualized review may be permissible if it does not insulate applicants from comparison with all other candidates.
Reasoning
Justice Powell’s controlling opinion treated the set-aside as an explicit racial classification that excluded Bakke from competing for 16 seats solely because of race, triggering strict scrutiny. The program was not narrowly tailored because it operated as a fixed quota and lacked the individualized consideration characteristic of acceptable admissions systems. Powell rejected remedial justifications not tied to identified past discrimination by the institution, but accepted that student-body diversity in higher education can constitute a compelling interest. As a result, the Court struck down the quota yet allowed race to be used in a holistic, competitive admissions process as one factor among many.
Significance
Bakke is the Court’s first major affirmative action decision and established the foundational distinction between impermissible racial quotas and potentially permissible holistic consideration of race in admissions. It introduced (through Justice Powell’s controlling rationale) diversity as a compelling interest in higher education while insisting on strict scrutiny and narrow tailoring for any race-based admissions policy. The framework shaped later cases evaluating affirmative action and the permissibility of race-conscious admissions policies.