Barbara Grutter's Argumentative Analysis

1238 Words5 Pages
Barbara Grutter, a white woman applied to the Law School in 1996. She received a 161 LSAT score and obtained an undergraduate GPA of 3.8. Grutter was not admitted at first but placed on a waiting list but ultimately rejected. In 1997, Grutter, similar to Bakke, filed a suit against the Regents of the University of Michigan claiming the she was discriminated against based on her race which violated her Fourteenth Amendment, more specifically the Equal Protection Clause, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Grutter’s main arguments against the Law School included the fact that she was rejected because the usage of race was a “predominant” factor, allowing racial minority groups “a significantly greater chance of admission than students…show more content…
Strict scrutiny is the most rigorous standards of judicial reviews in the levels of judicial scrutiny used by courts in the United States. Strict scrutiny and the remaining level were first introduced as a concept in the decision of United States v. Carolene Products Co, 1938, in footnote 4. It was first applied in 1944 when deciding Korematsu v. United States. The review of strict scrutiny can be applied during two instances, one being when a fundamental right is infringed, especially those stated in the Bill of Rights, and those protected by the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, and secondly when “suspect classification” is applied to government action. “Suspect classifications” include groups that have been historically discriminated against, they possess a visible trait, they are powerless in the political system to protect themselves, and their visible trait does not stop them from participating in society in a meaningful way. Race, religion, national origin, and alien status are all considered suspect classification, and thus any governmental law or policy that discriminates them will be reviewed under strict scrutiny. For a law or policy to be declared constitutional under strict scrutiny, it must be satisfy three components: it must have a compelling state interest which is generally accepted as necessary and crucial, it must be narrowly tailored to achieve that state interest, and it must be the least restrictive means for achieving that state interest. The Courts have never established a set definition of what constitutes a compelling state interest, thus making it harder to determine the remaining two components. One example of a compelling state interest includes national security. To determine if the interest is narrowly tailored, one must look if the law effects individuals more than
Open Document