“Diversity is not a compelling State interest that satisfies the strict scrutiny standard for the purpose of admissions at a public university”
How later courts described this case
- “Diversity is not a compelling State interest that satisfies the strict scrutiny standard for the purpose of admissions at a public university”
- reversing summary judgment because of testimonial conflict over when race factored into admission process
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*223 REAVLEY, Circuit Judge, specially
concurring:
This court’s writing in Hopwood, upon which the instant judgment is reversed, was inconsistent with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 , 98 S.Ct. 2733 , 57 L.Ed.2d 750 (1978) and was unnecessary to the holding or judgment of the Hopwood court. This circuit court, however, considers that Hopwood writing to be binding law. I concur here in the judgment only.