Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Gratz v. Bollinger Case Brief

Supreme Court of the United States2003Docket #165396
156 L. Ed. 2d 257 123 S. Ct. 2411 539 U.S. 244 2003 U.S. LEXIS 4801 2003 D.A.R. 6783 Constitutional Law Federal Courts Civil Procedure

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
3 min read

tl;dr: The Supreme Court struck down the University of Michigan’s undergraduate affirmative action policy, finding its automatic 20-point award to minority applicants was not narrowly tailored to achieve educational diversity and thus violated the Equal Protection Clause.

Legal Significance: This case established that university affirmative action policies using a mechanical, points-based system that makes race a decisive factor, rather than one part of a holistic, individualized review, cannot survive strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.

Gratz v. Bollinger Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Petitioners Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher, two qualified Caucasian applicants, were denied admission to the University of Michigan’s undergraduate College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LSA). At the time, the LSA used a 150-point “selection index” to rank applicants, with a score of 100 generally guaranteeing admission. The admissions policy automatically awarded 20 points—one-fifth of the total needed for automatic admission—to every applicant from an “underrepresented minority” group, defined as African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans. This bonus was granted solely based on an applicant’s racial or ethnic identity, without any individualized assessment of how that applicant might contribute to diversity. Other factors, such as outstanding personal achievement or a high-quality essay, were awarded significantly fewer points. The University defended the policy as a necessary means to achieve its compelling interest in the educational benefits of a diverse student body. Petitioners filed suit, alleging the policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does a university’s undergraduate admissions policy that automatically awards a fixed number of points to every applicant from an underrepresented minority group violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Yes. The University’s policy is unconstitutional because the automatic distribution of 20 Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in repre

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Does a university’s undergraduate admissions policy that automatically awards a fixed number of points to every applicant from an underrepresented minority group violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

As a companion case to *Grutter v. Bollinger*, *Gratz* clarifies the constitutional Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat

Legal Rule

All racial classifications imposed by a government actor are subject to strict Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proiden

Legal Analysis

The Court applied strict scrutiny to the University's admissions policy. While assuming, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsu

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • The Supreme Court struck down the University of Michigan’s undergraduate affirmative
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariat

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

The difference between ordinary and extraordinary is practice.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+