Grutter v. Bollinger - Supreme Court Upholds Affirmative Action but Sets 25-Year Limit

On June 23, 2003, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Grutter v. Bollinger that the University of Michigan Law School’s race-conscious admissions policy did not violate the Equal Protection Clause, upholding the principle that diversity in higher education constitutes a compelling government interest. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s majority opinion affirmed that race could be considered as one factor among many in individualized admissions decisions, but included language suggesting such consideration should end within 25 years—a timetable that would prove prescient.

The case arose from Barbara Grutter’s lawsuit, backed by the Center for Individual Rights (CIR), a conservative legal organization that had been challenging affirmative action programs since the 1990s. Grutter, a white Michigan resident, was denied admission to the law school in 1997 and argued that the school’s consideration of race violated her constitutional rights. CIR, part of a network of conservative legal organizations funded by foundations like Olin and Bradley, systematically litigated cases designed to eliminate race-conscious policies.

O’Connor’s opinion relied heavily on Justice Powell’s lone opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), elevating Powell’s diversity rationale to majority status for the first time. The Court accepted the university’s argument that student body diversity—particularly diversity of experience and viewpoint—enhanced the educational experience for all students and prepared graduates to work in an increasingly diverse society. Military leaders and major corporations filed amicus briefs supporting Michigan, arguing that diverse officer corps and workforces were essential for national security and business success.

However, O’Connor’s opinion included a fateful passage: “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.” This language, while not legally binding, signaled to conservative litigants that the Court’s tolerance for affirmative action was time-limited. CIR founder Michael Greve later described Grutter as a “temporary reprieve” that conservative lawyers would work to overturn.

The 25-year prediction proved almost exactly correct. In 2023—just 20 years after Grutter—the Supreme Court overturned the decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and UNC, ending race-conscious admissions nationwide. Grutter thus represented both a defense of affirmative action and the beginning of its end, with O’Connor’s language providing rhetorical ammunition for opponents who argued the policy was always meant to be temporary. The decision’s structure—diversity as compelling interest but with built-in expiration—exemplified how civil rights precedents could be framed to enable their own destruction.