Michigan
How City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co. applies in Michigan: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Constitutional Law — Equal Protection.
Michigan adheres to the equal protection standards established by the U.S. Supreme Court, requiring government entities to demonstrate a compelling interest for racial classifications in contracting. The Michigan Constitution further emphasizes the importance of nondiscrimination principles in public contracting.
In Michigan, any racial preference in government contracting must be narrowly tailored and based on a compelling governmental interest, consistent with the principles articulated in Croson.
The Michigan Supreme Court ruled against the University of Michigan's point system for admissions, finding it did not promote the compelling interest of diversity in a narrowly tailored manner.
The court held that the city’s minority contracting program violated equal protection guarantees by relying solely on racial classifications without sufficient justification.
The Michigan Supreme Court invalidated a city ordinance that favored minority contractors without showing a compelling state interest or considering race-neutral alternatives.
Michigan's approach is largely aligned with federal principles set forth in Croson, emphasizing that any affirmative action must be justified by compelling governmental interests and must be narrowly tailored. However, Michigan law also incorporates state constitutional provisions that may demand a higher scrutiny level for racial classifications in state actions compared to federal standards.
The principles from Croson and their application in Michigan are often relevant for constitutional law questions on the Michigan bar exam, particularly those dealing with equal protection and governmental contracting.