Regents of the University of Michigan v. State of Michigan
Michigan Court of Appeals
419 N.W.2d 773 (1988)
Facts
Regents for the University of Michigan consisted of eight members nominated at the state conventions of both political parties and elected at the state’s general election to eight-year terms. The Michigan Constitution provided the regents of each public university with the “general supervision of the University, and the direction and control of all expenditures from the university interest fund.” The Michigan Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination based on religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, and marital status. The Michigan legislature enacted Act 512, which amended the Michigan Civil Rights Act to provide that educational institutions must not make or maintain a financial investment in any organization operating in South Africa or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). The Regents of the University of Michigan (plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit against the State of Michigan (defendant), seeking a declaratory judgment that Act 512 was unconstitutional. The trial court granted summary judgment to the state, ruling that Act 512 did not violate the Michigan Constitution because it only restricted the Regents’ investment of funds, not the expenditure of funds. The Regents appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Walsh, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 708,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,500 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
