|
|
BAMN, et al. v. Granholm et al. CIR fights Prop. 2 delay
The Center for Individual Rights is representing Eric Russell in his defense of the constitutionality of an amendment passed by Michigan voters to ban the use of racial preferences in state programs. Despite passing by 58-42 in November 2006, numerous advocacy groups sought to delay implementation by challenging 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. 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 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. Though BAMN and other plaintiffs have appealed the ruling, CIR's victories in the Sixth Circuit and the District Court represent 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. Judge Lawson's decision in BAMN et al. v. Granholm et al. makes it less likely that advocates of race preferences will be able to use the federal courts to delay or abrogate the right of citizens to eliminate those preferences from their state governments. Currently, campaigns are underway in Arizona, Colorado, and Nebraska to pass similar initiatives.
Read Judge Lawon'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:
13-Jun-2008
 
|
|
