During its 2013-2014 term, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of Proposal 2, a ballot measure that amended Michigan’s state constitution to ban the consideration of race in admissions at public postsecondary institutions. This article outlines the legal questions that have emerged in the case—Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action et al.—and identifies areas where social science research can inform answers to these questions. This analysis should help enhance the relevance of research to legal determinations in cases that have broad implications for educators.
AnchetaA. N. (2005). Civil rights, education research, and the courts. Educational Researcher, 35(1), 26-29.
2.
AnchetaA. N. (2006). Scientific evidence and equal protection of the law. Newark, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
3.
AndersonJ. D. (2008). Expert report of James Anderson, 2008 WL 8718335.
4.
BackesB. (2012). Do affirmative action bans lower minority college enrollment and attainment? Evidence from statewide bans. Journal of Human Resources, 47(2), 435-455.
5.
Bonilla-SilvaE. (2008). Declaration of Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, 2008 WL 8718339.
6.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
7.
Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 692 (1997).
8.
Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action et al. v. Regents of the University of Michigan, et al., and Chase Cantrell et al. v. Regents of the University of Michigan et al., __ F.3d ___, 2002 WL 5519918 (6th Cir. 2012), petition for writ of certiorari granted (No. 12-682).
9.
Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Brown, 674 F.3d 1128 (2012).
10.
CollinsP. M.Jr.(2004). Friends of the court: Examining the influence of amicus curiae participation in U.S. Supreme Court litigation. Law & Society Review, 38(4), 807-832.
DunnJ.WestM. (2008). Calculated justice: Education research and the courts. In HessF. M. (Ed.), When research matters: How scholarship influences education policy (pp. 155-176). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
13.
Fisher v. University of Texas, 631 F.3d 213, (5th Cir. 2011), certiorari granted (No. 11-345).
14.
FonerE. (2008). Expert report of Eric Foner, 2008 WL 7853633.
15.
FrankenbergE.GarcesL. M. (2006). The use of social science evidence in Parents Involved and Meredith: Implications for researchers and schools. University of Louisville Law Review, 46(4), 703-751.
16.
GarcesL. M. (2012). Racial diversity, legitimacy, and the citizenry: The impact of affirmative action bans on graduate school enrollment. Review of Higher Education, 36(1), 93-132.
17.
GarcesL. M. (2013). Understanding the impact of affirmative action bans in different fields of graduate studies. American Educational Research Journal, 50(2), 251-284.
18.
Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003).
19.
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).
20.
HinrichsP. (2012). The effects of affirmative action bans on college enrollment, educational attainment, and the demographic composition of universities. Review of Economics and Statistics, 94(3), 712-722.
21.
HornC. L.FloresS. M. (2003). Percent plans in college admissions: A comparative analysis of three states’ experiences. Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Project, Harvard University.
22.
Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 385 (1969).
23.
Johnson v. California, 543 U.S. 499 (2005).
24.
KearneyJ. D.MerrillT. W. (2000). The influence of amicus curiae on the Supreme Court. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 148, 748-855.
25.
LairdB. (2008). Declaration of Bob Laird, 2008 WL 8718334.
MorganJ. M.PullinD. (2010). Social science and the courts: Challenges and strategies for bridging gaps between law and research. Educational Researcher, 39(7), 515-524.
National Academy of Education. (2007). Race-conscious policies for assigning students to school: Social science research and the Supreme Court cases. Committee on Social Science Research Evidence on Racial Diversity in Schools (LinnR. K.WelnerK. G., Eds.). Washington, DC: National Academy of Education.
30.
OlivasM. A. (1997). Constitutional criteria: The social science and common law of admissions decisions in higher education. University of Colorado Law Review, 68(4), 1064–1121.
31.
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No.1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007).
32.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).
33.
RustadM.KoenigT. (1993). The Supreme Court and junk social science: Selective distortions in amicus briefs. North Carolina Law Review, 72, 91-162.
34.
RyanJ. E. (2003). The limited influence of social science evidence in modern desegregation cases. North Carolina Law Review, 81, 1659-1702.
35.
SanderR.TaylorS.Jr. (2012). Mismatch: How affirmative action hurts students it’s intended to help, and why universities won’t admit it. New York, NY: Basic Books.
36.
SchaefferR. A. (2008). Declaration of Robert A. Schaeffer, 2008 WL 8741432.
37.
SegalJ. A. (1988). Amicus curiae briefs by the solicitor general during the Warren and Burger Courts: A research note. The Western Political Quarterly, 41(1), 135-144.
38.
SimmonsB. E (1996). Reconsidering strict scrutiny of affirmative action. Michigan Journal of Race and Law, 2, 51-99.
39.
SpriggsJ. F.WahlbeckP. J. (1997). Amicus curiae and the role of information at the Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly, 50(2), 365-386.
40.
SongerD. R.SheehanR. S. (1993). Interest group success in the courts: Amicus participation in the Supreme Court. Political Research Quarterly, 46(2), 339-354.
41.
TiendaM.LeichtK. T.SullivanT.MalteseM.LloydK. (2003). Closing the gap? Admissions and enrollments at the Texas public flagships before and after affirmative action (Working Paper Series, No. 2003-01). Princeton, NJ: Office of Population Research Princeton University.
42.
Washington v. Seattle School District No. 1, 458 U.S. 457 (1982).
43.
WilforeK. (2007). Declaration of Kristina Wilfore, 2007 WL 4377760.
44.
YunJ. T.MosesM. S.MarinP. (2012). Presentation at the University of Michigan national center for educational diversity symposium: Impact of anti-affirmative action policies in higher education (in file with authors).
