Regents of the University of California v. Bakke was a controversial case challenging the legal grounding of affirmative action programs in college admissions. A difficult decision for the Justices, the Court decided that affirmative action in college admissions was constitutional, but that racial quotas like those used by the University of California at the time, were not.

Allan Bakke, a white male in his mid-30s, sued the University of California after being denied admission to the medical school at the college's campus in the city of Davis. Once discovering the school had reserved seats for people of color, Bakke sued the university for “reverse discrimination.” The lower courts sided with Bakke and determined that the special admissions process was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that racial quotas violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

After reaching the Supreme Court through a series of appeals, the Court determined that the university could use race to evaluate candidates, but could not admit students using a racial quota. In a split decision, the court ordered the school admit Bakke. Bakke lives in Minnesota and has never given an interview after the case was decided.

The Bakke decision wasn't the last time the Court decided cases regarding college admission policies. In Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger, both decided in 2003, the Court again considered admissions practices, this time for the University of Michigan's undergraduate and law schools. In the former case, the Court ruled again that affirmative action policies were constitutional, while in the second case reaffirming the Court's assertion in Bakke that quota systems were unconstitutional.

Explainers