Texas v. Hopwood
Texas v. Hopwood was a significant legal case in the late 1990s that addressed the use of affirmative action in higher education, specifically at the University of Texas Law School. The case arose amid a national movement questioning the validity of racial preferences in admissions and employment. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the university’s affirmative action program, stating that any racial preferences must be substantiated by evidence of ongoing discrimination and that diversity alone cannot justify such policies under constitutional scrutiny. This decision was rooted in previous Supreme Court rulings, particularly focusing on the standards set forth in Adarand Constructors v. Peña and the opinions expressed in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case meant the Fifth Circuit's ruling stood unless overturned in future cases. The legal landscape surrounding affirmative action was thus directly impacted, raising important discussions about race, equality, and educational access in the United States. The case continues to be a reference point in ongoing debates about the role of affirmative action in American society.
Texas v. Hopwood
Date: July 1, 1996
Citation: 116 S.Ct. 2581
Issue: Affirmative action
Significance: The Supreme Court denied review of a circuit court decision that prohibited almost all considerations of race in the admissions policies of educational institutions.
In the late 1990’s there was a national movement against the use of racial preferences in education and employment. The Supreme Court in Adarand Constructors v. Peña (1995) held that all such programs must be justified by the compelling state interest test. Shortly thereafter, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated an affirmative action program of the University of Texas Law School. The court of appeals concluded that many of the ideas that Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., expressed in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) were not binding precedents. The court held that any racial preferences would have to be justified by proof of the continuing effects of past discrimination and that the goal of diversity would not pass constitutional scrutiny as a “compelling” justification. Because the Supreme Court refused to grant certiorari, the judgment was binding on the fifth circuit unless modified by a later decision. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took the unusual step of writing that the denial of certiorari did not necessarily mean that the majority of the justices agreed with the circuit court’s rationale.
