Supreme Court of the United States - Assignment Example

17 February Supreme Court of the United s Differences between the of Michigans use of race in its undergraduate admissions process and its use of race in its Law School admission process that led the Supreme Court to rule the former unconstitutional and the latter constitutional The difference between the two cases to warrant different rulings is the suitability of the university’s applied criterion to achieve the objective of equal representation by race. Even though the university’s use of race in both cases relates to Equal Protection Clause, its application in the Grutter’s case is consistent with ‘narrowly tailored’ use to achieve diversity and other factor to qualification are equally significant to the applicants’ selection process.

Consequently, the use of race is not an isolated factor to selection and this undermines discrimination of applicants from minority races. The case of Grantz, however, fails to identify the ‘narrowly tailored’ application and instead offers advantage to applicants from minority races. This is because the university offers additional 20 percent points to applicants from minority races, a factor that makes race an isolated and significant factor to qualification. The ‘narrowly tailored’ concept therefore establishes constitutionality of the university’s provisions under the Grutter case but unconstitutionality under the Grantz case (Supreme Court of the United States 4; Supreme Court of the United States1 31).

Reasons for Lee Bolinger’s suit in Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. BollingerLee Bolinger was sued in both cases because he is an agent to the artificial person and therefore acts on behalf of the institution. He is therefore not sued on his personal capacity but on capacities of the positions that he held at the times that interests on the case arose. In the Grutter case, for example, he is sued in the capacity of the Dean of the Law School and the capacity of the University’s president while in the case of Grants, he is sued in his capacity as the University’s president.

Works citedSupreme Court of the United States. “Jennifer Grantz and Patrick Hamacher, petitioners v. Lee Bollinger et al., No. 02-516.” Supreme Court of the United States. N.d. Web. February 17, 2015. < http://jay.law.ou.edu/faculty/Scaperlanda/Gratz.pdf>. Supreme Court of the United States1. “Barbara Grutter, petitioner v. Lee Bbollinger et al.” Supreme Court of the United States. N.d. Web. February 17, 2015. < http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/02-241P.ZO>.