|
|
Home > Cases > Civil Rights
BAMN, et al. v.
University of Michigan.
CIR defends Connerly ballot initiative
The Center for Individual Rights is representing Eric Russell in his defense of the constitutionality of an amendment sponsored by Ward Connerly and Jennifer Gratz to ban the use of racial preferences in state programs. Despite passing by 58-42 in Michigan's November 2006 election, numerous advocacy groups have challenged the new amendment in federal court. At issue in the case is the right of state voters to end the use of racial preferences under the Constitution. Shortly after the amendment passed, a group calling itself the “Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary” (BAMN)
filed a federal lawsuit demanding that the new amednment be enjoined, or prohibited by a judicial order. In essence, BAMN claimed that a constitutional amendment to ban racial preferences discriminated against the rights of racial minorities and thus violated the federal constitution. CIR, however, maintains the position that voters retain the right to outlaw racial preferences in their states and that, far from prohibiting such efforts, the U.S. Constitution encourages the elimination of racial classifications of all kinds, including classifications designed to benefit certain racial groups.
First test -- delay Before the plaintiffs sought to strike down the new amendment, they tried to delay its implementation. Numerous Michigan state officials, including the governor and the attorney general, joined BAMN in asking Judge Lawson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to delay enforcement of the amendment, known as Proposition 2, for a period of six months following its effective date in December 2006. This delay would mean that the amendment would not take effect until July 1, 2007. The Center for Individual Rights promptly filed an emergency motion with the district court to intervene on behalf of Eric Russell, a Michigan resident who applied to the University of Michigan law school in 2006. Mr. Russell sought to have his application considered without regard to his race as explicitly provided for by Proposition 2. CIR immediately appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and the court found that Judge Lawson had no legal authority to delay Proposition 2 This ruling permitted the amendment to be implemented immediately.
The larger legal battle The victory in the Sixth Circuit meant that Proposition 2 would proceed without delay, but the larger question of Proposition 2's constitutionality would be decided by the district court. BAMN, joined by the ACLU, the NAACP and a group of law professors, claimed that Proposition 2 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. After a year of pretrial discovery, Judge Lawson heard motions for summary judgment, which conteded that no factual issues remain to be tried and that the case could be decided without a trial.
On February 6, 2008 CIR's co-counsel Charles J. Cooper urged Judge Lawson to dismiss legal challenges to Proposition 2, and Judge Lawson ruled that Proposition 2 did not violate the U.S. Constitution. On December 11, 2008, Judge Lawson denied the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider his decision. This case, however, is not over. BAMN and other plaintiffs have appealed the ruling. CIR's defense of the Michigan civil rights initiative represents another chapter in the effort to reaffirm the constitutionality of state attempts to end racial descrimination and preferences across the nation. California's 1996 ballot initiative Proposition 209 faced similar legal challenges when the ACLU and the Coalition for Economic Equity (CEE) convinced a federal district court to issue a court order against Proposition 209. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found little merit in the CEE's claims and, like the Sixth Circuit, vacted the lower court's injunction.
Legal Documents:
Read Judge Lawson's denial of the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider
Read Judge Lawson's opinion
Read Russell's motion for summary judgment
Read the Sixth Circuit's opinion vacating the stay
Read CIR's emergency appeal to 6th Circuit
Read Judge Lawson's order delaying Prop. 2
Read 12-18-06 press release
Read CIR's motion for intervention
Read CIR's brief in opposition to the UM's request for delay
View important CIR cases protecting civil rights.
Learn more about CIR's history, mission and other groundbreaking CIR cases.
Help CIR protect the right to vote: donate to the cause! Remember, the Center for Individual Rights is a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) corporation. Your contribution is tax-deductible.  Last
revised:
23-Jul-2013
 
|
|
