|
|
Home > Cases > Civil Rights
BAMN, et al. v. Granholm et al.
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 November 2006, numerous advocacy groups 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. 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's position in this case is voters retain the right to outlaw racial preferences across the board and that far from prohibiting such efforts, the federal Constitution encourages the elimination of racial classifications of all kinds, including classifications designed to benefit certain racial groups.
First test -- delay Although the plaintiffs sought to strike down the new amendment, they first 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 Prop. 2 for a period of six months following its effective date in December 2006, or 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 Prop. 2. Then CIR immediately appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Finding that Judge Lawson had no legal authority to delay Prop. 2, the Sixth Circuit stayed his order on December 29, 2006. This action permitted Prop. 2 to take immediate effect.
The larger legal battle The victory in the Sixth Circuit meant that Prop. 2 would proceed without delay, but the larger question of Prop. 2’s constitutionality was remanded to the district court. BAMN, joined by the ACLU, the NAACP, and a group of law professors, claimed that Prop. 2 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. After a year of pretrial discovery, Judge Lawson heard motions for summary judgment.
On February 6, 2008 CIR co-counsel Charles J. Cooper urged Judge Lawson to dismiss legal challenges to Prop. 2. On March 18, 2008, Judge Lawson ruled that Prop. 2 did not violate the U.S. Constitution. Then, on December 11, 2008, Judge Lawson denied the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider his decision. BAMN and other plaintiffs have appealed the ruling. CIR's effort to defend the Michigan civil rights initiative represents another chapter in the effort to reaffirm the constitutionality of state efforts to end racial descrimination and preferences across the board. California's 1996 ballot initiative Prop. 209 faced similar legal challenges when the ACLU and the Coalition for Economic Equity (CEE) convinced a federal district court to issue an injunction against Prop. 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.
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:
18-Feb-2009
 
|
|
