The complexity of interpreting the Constitution is reflected through different Supreme Court rulings regarding controversial issues. In Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger, the U.S. Supreme Court had to determine whether or not the use of race in higher education admissions decisions was constitutional. In June, 2003, the Supreme Court ruled on two major affirmative action cases involving the University of Michigan’s admissions policies. Two petitioners claimed they were denied admission to the university’s schools due to their race. Justices Rehnquist, O’Connor, Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyers, who made up the Rehnquist Court at the time, had to deem whether or not the university’s policies were constitutional or not. In Gratz v. Bollinger they ruled that it was unconstitutional, while in Grutter v. Bollinger the Court ruled that it was not constitutional. Both cases involved the same school and were decided on the same day, so why did two justices in the same court vote differently in two similar cases?
Throughout U.S.…show more content… Justices Rehnquist, O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, the conservative justices, tended to find government-mandated racial preferences unconstitutional. Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer approved them in some circumstances. Notably, Justice O’Connor did not vote with the other conservatives in this case. She voted with the four liberal leaning justices, showing her more moderate side and that she carefully considered each case. O’Connor noted that affirmative action may be enforced presently, but racial preferences will no longer be necessary in the admission process 25 years from now. It implied that affirmative action should not be permanent and that eventually a policy not influenced by race should be implemented. At the time affirmative action was believed to be constitutional, because many higher education settings lacked
