Logourl black

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

United States Supreme Court
438 U.S. 265 (1978)


Facts

In 1973, the Medical School of the University of California at Davis (defendant) implemented a special admissions program intended to raise enrollment levels of minority students. Bakke (plaintiff) was a white male who applied for admission in 1973 and 1974 and was rejected both years. Bakke filed suit in the state courts of California alleging that the special admission program violated the California Constitution, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The trial court ruled in favor of Bakke and issued an injunction prohibiting the school from basing any admissions decision on the applicant’s race. The trial court declined to order that the school accept Bakke because it concluded that Bakke had failed to prove that he would have been admitted in the absence of the restrictions of the special admissions program. Bakke appealed to the state supreme court. The supreme court affirmed the trial court’s judgment with respect to its findings of constitutional violations, but instructed the trial court to issue an order directing the school to admit Bakke. The school petitioned the United States Supreme Court for review.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Powell, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Concurrence/Dissent (Brennan, J.)

The concurrence/dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the judge’s concurrence in part and dissent in part. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Concurrence/Dissent (Marshall, J.)

The concurrence/dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the judge’s concurrence in part and dissent in part. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Concurrence/Dissent (Blackmun, J.)

The concurrence/dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the judge’s concurrence in part and dissent in part. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Concurrence/Dissent (Stevens, J.)

The concurrence/dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the judge’s concurrence in part and dissent in part. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Here's why 86,000 law students rely on our case briefs:

  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners not other law students.
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet.
  • 12,053 briefs - keyed to 161 casebooks.
  • Uniform format for every case brief.
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language.
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions.
  • Ability to tag case briefs in an outlining tool.
  • Top-notch customer support.
Start Your Free Trial Now