Is Regents v. Bakke (1978) Good Law?
Bakke is the poster child for what is commonly referred to as a fractured or fragmented ruling. Prior to the Bakke ruling, the Supreme Court issued the following guidance for fragmented rulings in Marks v. U.S. (1977): When a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds. Interestingly, Justice Powell wrote both the Marks and Bakke rulings. Allen Bakke sued the University of California at Davis under Title VI and the 14th Amendment. He challenged the medical schools admission policy (the so-called Davis Plan) because it reserved 16 of 100 seats for minorities. In other words, minorities were eligible for any of 100 seats, whereas Alan Bakke was eligible for any of only 84 seats. Four justices viewed the Davis Plan as an illegal quota under Title VI and saw no reason to decide the 14th A
