Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v. Brown
674 F.3d 1128
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- California Proposition 209, Cal. Const. art. I § 31, bars race- or gender-based preferences in public education, including UC admissions.
- UC Regents adopted affirmative action programs to increase underrepresented minority enrollment before Prop. 209.
- Wilson II held §31 constitutional under conventional and political-structure analyses, prohibiting preferences.
- Plaintiffs filed a putative class action challenging §31 as applied to higher education; district court dismissed some defendants and claims.
- The district court concluded it was bound by Wilson II to uphold §31; Governor Brown later substituted as a defendant.
- Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal; Yudof challenges the district court’s Eleventh Amendment ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Yudof Eleventh Amendment immune? | Yudof lacks enforcement power over §31. | Eleventh Amendment immunity applies to state officers. | Yudof not immune; has fair direct enforcement connection. |
| Does §31 violate equal protection under conventional analysis? | As-applied, §31 burdens minorities in higher education. | Wilson II controls; §31 facially constitutional. | Affirmed dismissal; conventional analysis upheld by Wilson II. |
| Does Wilson II foreclose the as-applied challenge in light of Grutter? | Grutter permits race-based admissions; Wilson II should not bar as-applied challenge. | Wilson II remains controlling; Grutter does not overrule it. | Wilson II remains law of the circuit; Grutter not overruling it. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson, 122 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 1997) (upheld §31 constitutionality under both analyses)
- Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (U.S. 2003) (race-based admissions permissible where narrowly tailored)
- Snoeck v. Brussa, 153 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 1998) (Eleventh Amendment requires enforcement power for immunity)
- L.A. County Bar Ass'n v. Eu, 979 F.2d 697 (9th Cir. 1992) (direct enforcement connection suffices for Ex parte Young)
- Santamaria v. Horsley, 110 F.3d 1352 (9th Cir. 1997) (one panel cannot ordinarily overrule a prior panel)
- Polich v. Burlington N., Inc., 942 F.2d 1467 (9th Cir. 1991) (dismissal with prejudice proper when amendment cannot save)