Barbara Grutter case

In a case as complex as the Barbara Grutter v. Lee Bollinger, Jeffrey Lehman, Dennis Shields, and the Board of Regents of the University of Michigan one must delve deep into the intricacies of the legal system, as well as take into consideration the fact that this is not a simple case of a jilted individual, rather the outcome of this case could result in monumental changes in the ways opportunities are offered to minority groups throughout the country. Interestingly enough, the petitioner, Ms. Grutter, is not herself part of any minority group, but she feels and she was in fact affected by the way the University of Michigan conducted their admissions process, more specifically how preferences are given to applicants with minority backgrounds. By today’s standards, it can be inferred that this is simply a case of affirmative action, however, the problem lies in the specific way that the University of Michigan’s admissions system is set up. This case brings into question whether or not a number of laws have been violated, including the Equal Protection Clause of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution which states that: “no State shall ‘deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the l

This is the case that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals used to analyze the Bakke opinion on diversity being a compelling enough issue to allow race as a consideration in the admissions process of the University of Michigan Law School. In Marks, the petitioners for a writ of certiorari were convicted of transporting obscene materials in violation of a federal statue. The petitioners argued that because the acts that brought about charges occurred before Miller v. California was decided, they should be allowed a trial under “jury instructions not under Miller, but under the more favorable formulation of Memoirs v. Massachusetts.” Miller established new standards for “isolating hardcore pornography from expression protected by the first amendment.” Under the statues established by Memoirs, the prosecution would have the burden of proving the materials in question were “utterly without redeeming social value.” Furthermore, the petitioners argued that they should not suffer repercussions for something that was only made illegal after Miller; and, the retroactive application of the new law was in violation of a ban by the Constitution of ex post facto laws. The conviction was reversed by the Supreme Court.