In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), the Supreme Court struck down a medical school admissions program that reserved 16 of 100 seats for minority applicants, but ruled that race could still be considered as one factor among many in a genuinely individualized review. The decision produced no single majority opinion. Justice Lewis Powell’s controlling opinion set the framework that governed university admissions for the next 45 years, until the Court effectively overruled it in 2023.
What Happened at UC Davis
The University of California, Davis Medical School ran two admissions tracks. The general program handled most applicants under standard criteria. A separate special admissions program set aside 16 of the 100 seats in each entering class for minority candidates, who were rated only against one another and did not have to meet the same GPA cutoff as general applicants.1Justia. Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) Two committees reviewed the two pools independently. General applicants could never compete for the reserved 16.
Allan Bakke was a white engineer and former Marine in his mid-thirties. He applied to Davis in 1973 and again in 1974, and was rejected both times. His grades and MCAT scores were considerably higher than those of several candidates admitted through the special program. After the second rejection, he sued.1Justia. Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)
The Legal Claims
Bakke raised two claims. The first was the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any state from denying “any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”2Congress.gov. Fourteenth Amendment – Constitution Annotated Because UC Davis is a public university, its admissions decisions counted as state action.
The second was Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars any program receiving federal financial assistance from discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin.3Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 42 USC 2000d – Prohibition Against Exclusion From Participation in, Denial of Benefits of, and Discrimination Under Federally Assisted Programs on Ground of Race, Color, or National Origin The medical school received federal funds, so Title VI applied. Both claims came down to a single question: can a public institution treat applicants differently by race, even to benefit historically disadvantaged groups?
How the Court Split
The justices produced six opinions and no true majority on the reasoning. They divided into three camps, and two overlapping 5–4 outcomes came out of that division.
Four justices (Stevens, Burger, Stewart, and Rehnquist) would have decided the case on Title VI alone, ordered Bakke admitted, and gone no further. Four others (Brennan, White, Marshall, and Blackmun) would have upheld the Davis program in full as a valid race-conscious remedy.1Justia. Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)
Powell sat in the middle and voted with both groups on different questions. He joined the first four to strike down the Davis quota and order Bakke admitted. He joined the other four to reverse the lower court’s ruling that race could never be considered in admissions. Powell was the only justice in both winning coalitions, which is why his solo opinion became the operative law of the case.1Justia. Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)
Powell’s Reasoning: Strict Scrutiny and Diversity
Powell applied strict scrutiny, the most demanding standard of judicial review. Under that standard, any racial classification by a government actor must serve a compelling interest and be narrowly tailored to achieve it. He treated race-conscious admissions programs the same way, whether they burdened or benefited minority applicants.
Davis offered four justifications for its program: remedying past societal discrimination, countering identified discrimination, increasing the supply of doctors in underserved communities, and achieving a diverse student body. Powell rejected the first three. A university, he said, is not the right body to remedy broad societal discrimination; that job belongs to legislatures and agencies with specific findings of wrongdoing. And the record did not show that the Davis program actually placed more doctors in underserved areas.1Justia. Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)
Diversity survived. Powell found that a diverse student body serves a compelling educational interest because exposure to different perspectives and backgrounds enriches learning for everyone. He connected this to First Amendment principles of academic freedom, reasoning that universities need latitude to shape their intellectual environment. That single sentence of reasoning became the legal foundation for race-conscious admissions for the next four decades.
Quota Versus Plus Factor
Powell’s key distinction was between a rigid quota and a flexible, individualized review. The Davis program failed because 16 seats were walled off. Minority applicants competed only against each other for those seats, and general applicants had no access to them. That structure eliminated any real comparison across the full pool.1Justia. Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)
Powell pointed to the Harvard College admissions program as a lawful model. Under that approach, every applicant competes for every seat. Race can serve as a “plus” in an applicant’s file, but it does not shield anyone from comparison with the rest of the pool. A Black student’s background might tip the balance in the same way that growing up on a farm in Idaho or having an unusual work history might tip it for another applicant. Race is one qualitative factor weighed alongside academic performance, personal talents, geographic origin, and other characteristics.1Justia. Regents of Univ. of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)
That line, between a mechanical racial set-aside and holistic review, became the practical test universities used to design their admissions programs. Schools that folded race into an individualized assessment operated safely. Schools that assigned fixed numerical advantages by race did not.
What Happened After Bakke
Because Powell wrote alone, the authority of his opinion stayed uncertain for years. Two 2003 University of Michigan cases resolved that uncertainty and then clarified where the line ran.
In Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court adopted Powell’s diversity rationale as binding law. The majority upheld the Michigan Law School’s holistic admissions process, which considered race as a potential plus factor alongside essays, recommendations, and other qualities. Justice O’Connor wrote that “student body diversity is a compelling state interest that can justify the use of race in university admissions.”4Justia. Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003)
On the same day, the Court struck down Michigan’s undergraduate admissions policy in Gratz v. Bollinger. That system automatically awarded 20 points on a 150-point scale to every applicant from an underrepresented minority group. The Court found the mechanical formula made race the decisive factor for virtually every minimally qualified minority applicant, defeating the individualized consideration Bakke required.5Justia. Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003)
In 2023, the Court effectively overruled the framework. In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, the majority held that the race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause.6Justia. Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023) The Court found the programs lacked measurable objectives, used overbroad racial categories, and failed to show a meaningful connection between their use of race and the educational goals they claimed to pursue. Universities can no longer treat race as a plus factor in admissions, even inside a holistic review. The one narrow opening: applicants may discuss in personal essays how race has affected their lives, so long as the discussion is “concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability” the applicant would bring to the school. Admissions officers may credit what an applicant did with their experiences; they may not assign value to the racial category itself.
Why Bakke Still Matters
The operational rule from Bakke no longer controls admissions, but the case remains one of the most consequential education decisions the Court has issued. It introduced the idea that diversity itself carries constitutional weight, a principle that shaped admissions, hiring, contracting, and government programs for 45 years. It established that strict scrutiny applies to every racial classification, including those meant to benefit historically disadvantaged groups. And it showed how a single justice’s opinion can shape national policy when a court is deeply divided: Powell’s solo writing functioned as binding precedent for 25 years before Grutter formally adopted it.
For students, educators, and administrators today, the practical picture is clear. The race-as-plus-factor model Powell built and Grutter ratified no longer survives constitutional review. Universities pursuing diverse student bodies must now work through race-neutral tools: socioeconomic preferences, geographic considerations, targeted recruitment, and the narrow essay exception that lets applicants describe how their racial identity shaped who they are.