It is important to understand the ways in which our courts in this country work. It is even more important to know how legal reasoning is the basis for our systems credibility. How does the U.S. Supreme Court reach certain decisions using our constitution? In what ways is the constitution interpreted, stretched, and even abused? I intend to answer these questions as well as the role partisanship plays in decision-making. This will be done under the context of the current U.S. Supreme Court case, Grutter v. Bollinger. It is virtually impossible to avoid controversial court decisions. However, legal reasoning, when properly utilized, limits social dissent and lends faith back to the legal system. Nobody can claim that our constitution anticipates and addresses everything but it certainly provides the framework from which we can begin.
Barbara Grutter was an unsuccessful applicant to University of Michigan Law School. Grutter, despite academic sufficiency, believes she was denied because of the current admissions standards exercised at the law school. Grutter, a white woman, claims that the schools goal of achieving a diverse student body is discrimination and violates the equal protection clause set forth by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Law School of course disagrees and contends that its admissions policy is in compliance with the U.S. Supreme Courts decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) 438 U.S. 265. Subsequently, in May of 2002, the federal court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held in Grutter v. Bollinger that the Universities admissions policy is constitutional, reversing an earlier decision by a federal district court judge. The federal court of appeals followed the precedent set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court Bakke decision, holding that the Law School's interest in achieving the educational benefits that come from a diverse student body is compelling, and that its admissions policy is "narrowly tailored" to serve that interest (Alger 1).
