In the case of Barbara Grutter v. Lee Bollinger et al., 2002, the U.S Supreme Court upheld that universities could consider race as a factor in admissions to promote diversity within their student body. The University of Michigan Law School's policy was challenged by Barbara Grutter, a white woman who claimed she had been denied admission based on her race. She argued this violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of Civil Rights Act. However, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor delivered majority opinion stating that while racial quotas were not permissible under Bakke ruling (1978), considering race as part of holistic review process for each applicant was constitutional since it served compelling interest in achieving educational diversity. This decision reaffirmed commitment to affirmative action but also emphasized such policies must be limited in time and reviewed regularly to ensure they are still necessary.

In the dissenting opinion for Barbara Grutter v. Lee Bollinger et al., Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, argued that the University of Michigan Law School's use of race as a factor in admissions decisions was unconstitutional. They contended that such policies were not narrowly tailored to achieve diversity and did not meet strict scrutiny, the highest standard of judicial review. The justices also disputed the law school's claim that it needed to consider race to ensure a "critical mass" of minority students, arguing this concept was too vague and subjective to justify racial discrimination. Furthermore, they suggested there were other ways for schools to promote diversity without resorting to racial preferences. Lastly, they expressed concern about potential harm caused by affirmative action programs including stigmatization and mismatch theory - where beneficiaries are placed into academic settings where they're underqualified leading them struggle more than if they had attended less competitive institutions.