|
COALITION TO DEFEND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION v. BROWN
| Issue: |
Whether a decision by the citizens of a state, through the initiative process, to prohibit the state and its agencies and political subdivisions from engaging in any form of racial preferences, violates the Equal Protection Clause?
|
| Plaintiffs: |
Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equity by any Means Necessary (BAMN), and fifty-six individually named California high school and college students
|
| Defendants: |
Edmund G. Brown, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of California, and Mark Yudoff, in his official capacity as President of the University of California
|
| Intervenor: |
Ward Connerly and the American Civil Rights Foundation, represented by Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF)
|
| Amicus Curiae: |
Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF) and the Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO), both represented by MSLF
|
| Court: |
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
|
| Status: |
On April 2, 2012, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld the ruling of the federal district court.
|
| Next Event: |
Unknown.
|
| History: |
In November 1996, California’s voters approved Proposition 209, the California Civil Rights Initiative, which amended the California Constitution by barring discrimination on the basis of “race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.” The day after its enactment, several groups filed suit challenging it on equal protection grounds. A California federal district court enjoined its enforcement; however, a Ninth Circuit three-judge panel reversed the ruling, holding both that the plaintiffs had “no likelihood of success on the merits” and that Proposition 209 does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Recently, Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equity By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), and fifty-six college and high school students challenged Proposition 209 as it applies to the University of California and its admissions policies. Ward Connerly and the American Civil Rights Foundation, the sponsors and chief supporters of Proposition 209, represented by Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), intervened. A California federal district court ruled that it was bound by the earlier Ninth Circuit ruling that Proposition 209 is constitutional, which ruling BAMN appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
In 1995, MSLF won the landmark Supreme Court ruling of Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, in which the Court held that the use of racial preferences by any governmental entity is constitutionally suspect. On July 8, 2011, MSLF filed its friend of the court brief in support of Proposition 209.
|
|
