Michigan
How Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena applies in Michigan: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Civil Rights.
In Michigan, the principles from Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena are applicable in evaluating affirmative action programs under the state's constitutional provisions. The Michigan Supreme Court has engaged with these federal principles while focusing on ensuring that any affirmative action measures are narrowly tailored to address specific instances of past discrimination.
The Michigan Constitution, particularly Article I, Section 26, forbids state-sponsored affirmative action programs unless they are justified by a compelling governmental interest and are narrowly tailored.
The Michigan Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Proposition 2, which bans affirmative action in public employment and education, asserting that the state must ensure strict scrutiny of any affirmative action policies.
In this case, the court reinforced that any affirmative action initiative must be supported by a demonstrable need for remediation of historical discrimination.
The court ruled that admissions policies must align with both state and federal constitutional standards, emphasizing the requirement for narrowly tailored measures.
Michigan's approach reflects the Adarand guidelines requiring strict scrutiny over affirmative action programs; however, Michigan's constitutional ban under Proposal 2 creates a stricter environment for these programs than the federal standard, which allows some latitude for remedial actions.
Candidates should be aware of the differences between state and federal approaches to affirmative action, particularly the implications of Michigan's Proposal 2 when analyzing relevant hypotheticals.