Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
The Court upheld affirmative action, allowing race to be one of several factors in college admission policy.
438 U.S. 265 · No. 76-811 · 1977 term · Burger Court
Decided Jun 26, 1978 · argued Oct 12, 1977
Civil rights · Affirmative action
Landmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity
Majority opinion: Lewis Powell
The voteMajorityDissent
5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent
4 dissents (5–4)
Affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part. Regents of the University of California lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed in part and reversed in part: the Supreme Court upheld part of the decision of the California Supreme Court and overturned or set aside the rest.
Regents of the University of California was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that involved a dispute over whether preferential treatment for minorities could reduce educational opportunities for whites without violating the Constitution. It upheld affirmative action, allowing race to be one of several factors in college admission policy. However, the court ruled that specific racial quotas, such as the 16 out of 100 seats set aside for minority students by the UC Davis School of Medicine, were impermissible.
Although in Brown v. Board of Education the Supreme Court had outlawed segregation in schools and had ordered school districts to take steps to ensure integration, the question of the legality of voluntary affirmative action programs initiated by universities remained unresolved. Proponents deemed such programs necessary to make up for past discrimination, while opponents believed they violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A previous case that the Supreme Court had taken in an attempt to address the issue, DeFunis v. Odegaard (1974), had been dismissed on procedural grounds.
Allan P. Bakke (), an engineer and former Marine officer, sought admission to medical school but was rejected for admission partly because of his age — Bakke was in his early 30s while applying, which at least two institutions considered too old. After twice being rejected by the University of California, Davis, he brought suit in state court challenging the constitutionality of the school's affirmative-action program. The Supreme Court of California struck down the program as violative of the rights of white applicants and ordered Bakke admitted. The U.S. Supreme Court accepted the case amid wide public attention.
The ruling on the case was highly fractured. The nine justices issued a total of six opinions. The judgment of the court was written by Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr.; two different blocs of four justices joined various parts of Powell's opinion. Finding diversity in the classroom to be a compelling state interest, Powell opined that affirmative action in general was allowed under the Constitution and the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Nevertheless, UC Davis's program went too far for a majority of justices; it was struck down and Bakke was admitted. The practical effect of Bakke was that most affirmative action programs continued without change.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1977 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
Lewis PowellWrote the majority opinion
John StevensWrote a concurrence
Potter StewartJoined the majority
Warren BurgerJoined the majority
William RehnquistJoined the majority
Dissent(4)
Thurgood MarshallWrote a dissent
Byron WhiteWrote a dissent
Harry BlackmunWrote a dissent
William BrennanJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Regents of the University of CaliforniaState college or university (California)
- Respondent
- BakkeStudent, or applicant for admission to an educational institution
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection)
- Kind of law
- Constitutional Amendment
- Decided by
- Judicial review (state level)
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 26, 1978DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part. Regents of the University of California lost.
- Oct 12, 1977ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the California Supreme Court: affirmed and reversed (or vacated) in part.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the California trial court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
24 other argued cases since 1946 on affirmative action, newest first.
- Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard CollegeLandmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity600 U.S. 181Jun 29, 2023 · 600 U.S. 181Civil rightsLandmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity6–27–2 band
- Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin579 U.S. 365Jun 23, 2016 · 579 U.S. 365Civil rights4–36–3 band
- Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative ActionLandmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity572 U.S. 291Apr 22, 2014 · 572 U.S. 291Civil rightsLandmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity6–27–2 band
- Abigail Noel Fisher, Petitioner v. University of Texas at Austin et al.570 U.S. 297Jun 24, 2013 · 570 U.S. 297Civil rights7–18–1 band
- Frank Ricci, et al. v. John Destefano et al.557 U.S. 557Jun 29, 2009 · 557 U.S. 557Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Barbara Grutter v. Lee Bollinger et al.Landmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity539 U.S. 306Jun 23, 2003 · 539 U.S. 306Civil rightsLandmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity5–45–4 band
- Jennifer Gratz and Patrick Hamacher v. Lee Bollinger et al.Landmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity539 U.S. 244Jun 23, 2003 · 539 U.S. 244Civil rightsLandmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity6–36–3 band
- Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Federico Pena, Secretary of Transportation, et al.Landmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity515 U.S. 200Jun 12, 1995 · 515 U.S. 200Civil rightsLandmark · Discrimination based on race and ethnicity5–45–4 band
- Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission et al.497 U.S. 547Jun 27, 1990 · 497 U.S. 547Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Martin et al. v. Wilks et al.490 U.S. 755Jun 12, 1989 · 490 U.S. 755Civil rights5–45–4 band
- City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Company488 U.S. 469Jan 23, 1989 · 488 U.S. 469Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Johnson v. Transportation Agency, Santa Clara County, California, et al.480 U.S. 616Mar 24, 1987 · 480 U.S. 616Civil rights6–36–3 band
- United States v. Paradise et al.480 U.S. 149Feb 25, 1987 · 480 U.S. 149Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Local Number 93, International Association of Firefighters, AFL-CIO, C. L. C. v. City of Cleveland et al.478 U.S. 501Jul 2, 1986 · 478 U.S. 501Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association et al. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al.478 U.S. 421Jul 2, 1986 · 478 U.S. 421Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Wygant et al. v. Jackson Board of Education et al.476 U.S. 267May 19, 1986 · 476 U.S. 267Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Firefighters Local Union No. 1784 v. Stotts et al.467 U.S. 561Jun 12, 1984 · 467 U.S. 561Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Weinberger, Secretary of Defense, et al. v. Rossi et al.456 U.S. 25Mar 31, 1982 · 456 U.S. 25Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Minnick et al. v. California Department of Corrections et al.452 U.S. 105Jun 1, 1981 · 452 U.S. 105Civil rights8–18–1 band
- Fullilove et al. v. Klutznick, Secretary of Commerce, et al.448 U.S. 448Jul 2, 1980 · 448 U.S. 448Civil rights6–36–3 band
- United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Weber et al.443 U.S. 193Jun 27, 1979 · 443 U.S. 193Civil rights5–27–2 band
- Southeastern Community College v. Davis442 U.S. 397Jun 11, 1979 · 442 U.S. 397Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Morton, Secretary of the Interior, et al. v. Mancari et al.417 U.S. 535Jun 17, 1974 · 417 U.S. 535Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Defunis et al. v. Odegaard et al.416 U.S. 312Apr 23, 1974 · 416 U.S. 312Civil rights5–45–4 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.