California
How Fisher v. University of Texas applies in California: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Constitutional Law.
California courts generally apply strict scrutiny to affirmative action policies in public higher education. The emphasis remains on diversity but requires a careful examination of the means used to achieve that diversity, similar to the framework established in Fisher.
Affirmative action policies in California must pass the strict scrutiny standard by demonstrating a compelling state interest and that the means chosen are narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
The Supreme Court found that affirmative action in college admissions could be permissible, but quotas based solely on race violated the Equal Protection Clause.
The court upheld the university’s admission policies but reaffirmed that diversity could not solely rely on racial factors.
The court emphasized that while diversity is a legitimate goal, achieving it must not infringe on individual rights under the Equal Protection Clause.
California's approach mirrors the federal standard in that both require strict scrutiny for affirmative action. However, California's Proposition 209 explicitly prohibits the use of race in public employment, education, and contracting, creating a unique state context that diverges from some federal practices.
Questions related to affirmative action and Equal Protection are frequently tested on the California bar exam, particularly in the context of educational institutions.