IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

________________________________ BARBARA GRUTTER                   Plaintiff,       v. LEE BOLLINGER, et al.,                   Defendants. ________________________________

) ) ) )           Civil Action No. 97-75928 ) )           Hon. Bernard Friedman ) )           Hon. Virginia Morgan ) ) )

DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and Local Rule 7.1, and for the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum, defendants hereby move this Court for the entry of summary judgment.

As set forth more fully in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, at the close of extensive discovery in this matter there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact. All of the record evidence confirms that the University of Michigan Law School's admissions processes fully comply with the standards set out in the Supreme Court's decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978). Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all of plaintiff's claims.

In addition, a separate doctrine bars all of plaintiff's damages claims against the Board of Regents. The doctrine protecting the recipients of federal funds from being sued for money damages where it is not "obvious" that they will be liable in damages applies to the damages claim against the Board of Regents under Title VI. Accordingly, summary judgment in defendants' favor is appropriate on plaintiff's claims for damages, because there is no material dispute -- indeed, there is no evidence at all -- that defendants violated plaintiff's "clearly established" constitutional rights.

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a), defendants state that on April 29, 1999, concurrence in this motion and the relief sought was requested from plaintiff's counsel and that such concurrence was not granted.

Philip J. Kessler, P15921 Leonard M. Niehoff, P36695 BUTZEL LONG 350 South Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 (734) 213-3625	Respectfully submitted, ___________________________ John H. Pickering John Payton Jane Sherburne WILMER, CUTLER & PICKERING 2445 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 (202) 663-6000
Dated: October 9, 2000

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

________________________________ BARBARA GRUTTER                   Plaintiff,       v. LEE BOLLINGER, et al.,                   Defendants. and KIMBERLY JAMES, et al.,                   Intervening                   Defendants ________________________________

) ) ) )           Civil Action No. 97-75928 ) )           Hon. Bernard Friedman ) )           Hon. Virginia Morgan ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

DEFENDANTS' MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

John H. Pickering John Payton Jane Sherburne WILMER, CUTLER & PICKERING 2445 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 (202) 663-6000 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS Dated October 9, 2000

Philip J. Kessler, P15921 Leonard M. Niehoff, P36695 BUTZEL LONG 350 South Main Street, Suite 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 (734) 213-3625

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE PRESENTED	iii
CONTROLLING AUTHORITIES	iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES	v
INDEX OF EXHIBITS	x
INTRODUCTION	1
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS	3
1. The Faculty Admissions Policy General Objectives     6 Grades, Test Scores, and Their Limitations     6 Treating Each Applicant as an Individual    8 The Role of Racial and Ethnic Diversity     10	5
2. The Admissions Process: Implementing the Admissions Policy File-by-File Review    15 Race as a Single Though Important Element    17 The Data    18	14
ARGUMENT	20
I. CONTROLLING PRECEDENT PERMITS THE COMPETITIVE CONSIDERATION OF RACE IN LAW SCHOOL ADMISSIONS A Properly Devised Admissions Program Involving the Competitive Consideration of Race and Ethnic Origin is Constitutional     22 Diversity Is a Compelling Interest in the University Admissions Context     23 Bakke's Limitations on the Consideration of Race in University Admissions     29 Bakke Is Binding Precedent     32	21
II. THE LAW SCHOOL COMPLIES WITH THE BAKKE STANDARD	36
III. THE BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN IS ALSO ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF'S DAMAGES CLAIMS UNDER TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT	43
CONCLUSION	49

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED

1. Whether the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all of plaintiff's claims because the undisputed factual record shows that the admissions practices of the University of Michigan Law School -- which involve the "competitive consideration of race" as a "single though important factor" in order to achieve the benefits of a diverse student body -- comport with the standards set out in Justice Powell's controlling opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).
   
   
2. Whether the Board of Regents of the University of Michigan is entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's damages claims brought under Title VI because it would not have been "obvious" to the Board of Regents that, by accepting federal funds, it was subjecting itself to liability in damages on account of an admissions system that complies fully with Justice Powell's controlling opinion in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).

CONTROLLING AUTHORITIES

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)

Johnson v. Transportation Agency, 480 U.S. 616 (1987)

Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977)

Oliver v. Kalamazoo Board of Education, 706 F.2d 757 (6th Cir. 1983)

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995)	20, 35
Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997)	35
Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68 (1979)	21
Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes, 523 U.S. 666 (1998)	27
Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982)	21
Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth, 120 S. Ct. 1346 (2000)	26, 27
Brewer v. West Irondequoit Central School District, 212 F.3d 738 (2d Cir. 2000)	35
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)	13, 21
City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 88 U.S. 469 (1989)	20, 29, 30
Crawford v. Pittman, 708 F.2d 1028 (1983)	28
Davis v. Halpern, 768 F. Supp. 968 (E.D.N.Y. 1991)	34
Eisenberg v. Montgomery County Public Schools, 197 F.3d 123 (4th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 1420 (2000)	34
Estate of Ritter v. University of Michigan, 851 F.2d 846 (6th Cir. 1988)	44
Federated Publications, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Michigan State University, 594 N.W.2d 491 (Mich. 1999)	28
Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60 (1992)	44
Franks v. Kentucky School for the Deaf, 142 F.3d 360 (6th Cir. 1998)	45
Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School District, 524 U.S. 274 (1998)	44, 45, 46
Guardians Association v. Civil Service Commission 463 U.S. 582 (1983)	45
Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972)	26
Hohn v. United States, 524 U.S. 236 (1998)	35
Hopwood v. State of Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996)	passim
Horner v. Kentucky High School Athletic Association, 206 F.3d 685 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, No. 99-2023, 2000 WL 795898 (U.S. Oct. 2, 2000)	44, 45
Interstate Consolidated Street Railway Co. v. Massachusetts, 207 U.S. 79 (1907)	21
Jacobson v. Cincinnati Board of Education, 961 F.2d 100 (6th Cir. 1992)	27, 34
Johnson v. Board of Regents of the University of Georgia, 106 F. Supp. 2d 1362 (S.D. Ga. 2000)	13
Johnson v. Transportation Agency, 480 U.S. 616 (1987)	33
Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967)	2, 25, 26
Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977)	33
McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education, 339 U.S. 637 (1950)	21
Oliver v. Kalamazoo Board of Education, 706 F.2d 757 (6th Cir. 1983)	34
Parate v. Isibor, 868 F.2d 821 (6th Cir. 1989)	27
Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1 (1981)	44, 45
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)	passim
Regents of the University of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (1985)	passim
Rodriguez De Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477 (1989)	35
Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995)	2, 26
Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991)	26, 27
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996)	44
Smith v. University of Washington Law School, 2 F. Supp. 2d 1324 (W.D. Wash. 1998)	34
State Oil Company v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3 (1997)	13, 35
Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950)	24
Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957)	2, 25, 27
Triplett Grille, Inc. v. City of Akron, 40 F.3d 129 (6th Cir. 1994)	33
Tuttle v. Arlington County School Board., 195 F.3d 698 (4th Cir. 1999)	34
United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997)	45
United States v. Paradise, 480 U.S. 149 (1987)	32
University & Community College System v. Farmer, 930 P.2d 730 (Nev. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1004 (1998)	35
Wessman v. Gittens, 160 F.3d 790 (1st Cir. 1998)	34
Wheeler v. Barrera, 417 U.S. 402 (1974)	28
Winkes v. Brown University, 747 F.2d 792 (1st Cir. 1984)	34
Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, 476 U.S. 267 (1986)	33
CONSTITUTION
U.S. Const., amend. XIV ("Equal Protection Clause")	22
Mich. Const., art. 8 (1963)	28
Mich. Const., art. 8, §4	3
Mich. Const., art. 8, § 5	3
STATUTES
20 U.S.C. § 1232a	28
20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (Title IX)	44
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e	passim 33
MISCELLANEOUS
Akhil Reed Amar and Neal Katyal, Bakke's Fate, 43 UCLA L. Rev. 1745 (1996)	20, 48
Peter Schmidt, U. of Michigan Turns to Scholars to Bolster Its Defense of Affirmative Action, Chronicle of Higher Education, April 2, 1999 at A38	12
Jaimie Winkler, Expert Witnesses Discuss Diversity, Michigan Daily, March 18, 1999 at 7a	12
59 Fed. Reg. 8756 (1994)	46

INDEX OF EXHIBITS
Volume 1: Documents and Materials*/
Exhibit	Description
A.	University of Michigan Law School Bulletin: 1995-1997 (Deposition Exhibit 7).
B.	Law School Admissions Office: Daily Summary of Applicant Status ("Daily Report") (Deposition Exhibit 10).
C.	University of Michigan Law School Bulletin: 1997-1999 (Deposition Exhibit 8).
D.	Law School Admissions Policy (Deposition Exhibit 4).
E.	Letter, dated December 8, 1997, from Jeffrey S. Lehman (Deposition Exhibit 59).
F.	"The Gospel According To Dennis" (Deposition Exhibit 5).
G.	Tables 5 and 6 of Expert Report submitted by plaintiff's expert, Kinley Larntz.
H.	Smith v. University of Washington Law School, No. C97-335Z (W.D. Wash. Feb. 12, 1999).
I.	Law School Announcement: 1988-89 (Deposition Exhibit 55).
J.	Standard 212 (Deposition Exhibit 84).
K.	American Bar Association Report on the University of Michigan Law School: February 9-12, 1992 (p. 38) (Deposition Exhibit 60).
L.	Memorandum from Don Regan (Deposition Exhibit 32).
M.	Letter, dated August 16, 1992, from Edward H. Cooper to James P. White (included in Deposition Exhibit 61).
N.	Report of Kinley Larntz, plaintiff's expert (p. 9); charts produced by Larntz (Deposition Exhibit 68).
O.	The University of Michigan Law School Admissions Office Grid of LSAT & GPA (Deposition Exhibit 15).
P.	ABA Standards For approval of Law Schools (Deposition Exhibit 30).
Q.	Association of American Law Schools (AALS) 1994 Handbook (Deposition Exhibit 31).
R.	Letter to Dr. Don Michael Randel, President, University of Chicago, from Linda A. McGovern, Director, Chicago Office, Midwestern Division, Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, re: OCR Complaint #05-97-2044 (August 14, 2000).
*/     Certain of the documents included in Volume 1 of the Appendix were designated by defendants as confidential pursuant to the Unopposed Stipulation and Protective Order Concerning Confidentiality, entered May 28, 1998. Pursuant to � 5 of that Order, defendants waive their confidential designations for any materials included in the Appendix.
Volume 2: Deposition Excerpts**/
Deponent	Deposition date
Lee Bollinger Susan Eklund Donald Herzog Kinley Larntz Jeffrey Lehman Richard Lempert Alissa Leonard Marcea Metzler Erica Munzel Stephen Raudenbush Donald Regan Theodore Shaw Dennis Shields Allan Stillwagon Jean Wong	February 9, 1999 June 2, 1998 August 26, 1998 February 2, 1999 January 21, 1999 November 5, 1998 November 2, 1998 February 5, 1999 June 1, 1998 March 9, 1999 August 27, 1998 February 3, 1999 December 7, 1998 November 6, 1998 July 21, 1998
**/     Some of the deposition testimony included in Volume 2 of the Appendix was designated by defendants as confidential pursuant to the Unopposed Stipulation and Protective Order Concerning Confidentiality, entered May 28, 1998. Pursuant to ¶ 5 of that Order, defendants waive their confidential designations for any materials included in the Appendix.
Volume 3: Expert Witness Reports
Expert Witness
Derek Bok Albert Camarillo Eric Foner Patricia Gurin Stephen Raudenbush (with Supplemental Reports) Claude Steele Thomas Sugrue Kent Syverud Robert Webster

Continue to next section of document

Grutter briefs – Table of Contents