The Case Of Schuette V. Coalition

1675 WordsDec 6, 20147 Pages
The case of Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action was presented before the Supreme Court of the United States; the case questioned that whether a state violated the Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amendment by maintaining a ban on the racial and sex preferences on the admissions in the public universities in the constitution of the state (Bernstein). The arguments on these cases started on 15th October, 2013 on an appeal for the Sixth Circuit from the United States Court of Appeal, which had established the rule in 2012 regarding Michigan ban, which was approved by the voters of the state in the year 2006. The Sixth Circuit emphasized that the Michigan ban was unconstitutional. But, the ban on the state was upheld, the Sixth…show more content…
Moreover, about 58% of the voters in Michigan approved the Proposal 2, which is also known as Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (Mears). Proposal 2 put a ban on the racial preferences. This ban was challenged by the individuals and groups, who were in favor of the use of the affirmative action. Specifically in the higher education institutions. The ban was upheld by the Federal district Court, but a panel from the United States Court of Appeals had appealed for the Sixth Circuit and struck the ban down by vote of 2-1. The entire Sixth Circuit, however, considered that Proposal 2 was not constitutional. Further, Cato had joined Pacific Legal Foundation as well as four more organizations, and argued that the voters of Michigan had acted in a constitutional and legal manner for ruling out discrimination based on the sex, race, and favoritism in the admissions of the public sector universities. The court had, however, heard the arguments, Mark Rosenbaum, Bill Schuette, and Attorney General of Michigan argued in the favor of Cantrell respondents, Michigan Solicitor General presented arguments for the petitioner, and Shanta Driver presented the arguments for partnership in order to defend the affirmative action. However, Justice Elena Kagan showed no active involvement in the case. The court, however,
Open Document