Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Grutter v. Bollinger Case Brief

Supreme Court of the United States • 2003 • Docket #236119

Create New Course

Create a new course to organize your saved briefs

Enter the name of the course (e.g., Constitutional Law)

Enter the term when you're taking this course (e.g., Spring 2025)

156 L. Ed. 2d 304 123 S. Ct. 2325 539 U.S. 306 2003 U.S. LEXIS 4800 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 367 Constitutional Law Administrative Law Federal Courts

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.

Try Free for 14 Days

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: A white applicant challenged a public law school’s admissions policy that used race as a “plus” factor. The Supreme Court upheld the policy, finding that achieving student body diversity is a compelling state interest and the school’s individualized, holistic review was narrowly tailored.

Legal Significance: Established that student body diversity is a compelling state interest under the Equal Protection Clause, justifying the narrowly tailored use of race in higher education admissions. It endorsed Justice Powell’s reasoning in Bakke and affirmed the constitutionality of holistic, individualized review programs.

Grutter 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

The University of Michigan Law School, a public institution, sought to achieve student body diversity to obtain the educational benefits that flow from it. Its admissions policy aimed to enroll a “critical mass” of underrepresented minority students (defined as African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans) to ensure they did not feel isolated and could contribute to a robust exchange of ideas. The policy did not use a quota system but instead employed a holistic, individualized review of each applicant. Admissions officials considered race as one of many “plus” factors, alongside academic metrics (GPA, LSAT) and other “soft variables” like essays, recommendations, and life experiences. Barbara Grutter, a white applicant with competitive credentials, was denied admission and sued, alleging the policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by discriminating against her based on race. She argued the school’s use of race was not narrowly tailored to a compelling interest.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Does a public law school’s use of race as one factor in a holistic, individualized admissions process to obtain the educational benefits of a diverse student body violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

No, the Law School’s admissions policy is constitutional. The Court held that 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

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 public law school’s use of race as one factor in a holistic, individualized admissions process to obtain the educational benefits of a diverse student body violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

Grutter v. Bollinger established the constitutional legitimacy of holistic, race-conscious admissions programs 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

Legal Rule

All governmental racial classifications are subject to strict scrutiny and are 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. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. E

Legal Analysis

Writing for the majority, Justice O'Connor first endorsed Justice Powell's view in 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 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 irur

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • Holding: Student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can
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

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?