Law Week April 28, 2014 Grand Rapids Business Journal 23
Michigan’s affirmative action ban is upheld Charlsie Dewey
Grand Rapids Business Journal
The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed last week the constitutionality of Michigan’s affirmative action ban in public university admissions policies. In its 6-2 ruling, the Supreme Court said that voters have the right to determine whether a policy of race-based preferences should be continued. Michigan voters approved Proposal 2 in 2006, which prohibited discrimination or the use of race or sex in university admissions. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals later declared the amendment unconstitutional, saying that it violated the federal Constitution Equal Protection Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Schuette v. the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action during October of last year. “The question here is not how to address or prevent injury caused on account of race, but whether voters may determine whether a policy of race-based preferences should be continued,” Justice Anthony Kennedy noted last week in the Supreme Court’s opinion. “The question here concerns not the permissibility of raceconscious admissions policies under the Constitution but whether, and in what manner, voters in the states may choose to prohibit the consideration of racial preferences in governmental decisions, in particular with respect to school admissions,” Kennedy added. John Bursch, former Michigan solicitor general and currently an attorney with Warner Norcross, argued the case before the U.S. Supreme Court in the fall. “The court ruled 6-2 that Michigan’s constitutional amendment was valid,” Bursch said. “That means it is constitutional for Michigan voters to require equal treat-
ment that does not violate equal protection. Going forward, Michigan’s public universities will not be able to use race or sex in university admissions criteria, although they will be able to take into consideration other things such as socioeconomic status and a person’s background — the holistic admissions approach that other states have used.” Bursch said universities have been complying with the amendment during the legal process. Other states, including California, have enacted similar laws. “The Federal Court of Appeals and the California Supreme Court upheld the California law,” Bursch said. “Michigan’s is virtually identical, and the Sixth Circuit struck it down, so you had a conflict between the Circuit Courts and the California Supreme Court as to whether these kinds of laws are constitutional.” Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinion, which was signed on to by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Today’s decision does not impact the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger decision, a landmark affirmative action case involving the University of Michigan Law School. In that case, the Court said public universities could take race into consideration in limited circumstances. The Court reaffirmed the Grutter decision as recently as last year in Fischer v. University of Texas at Austin, when it said greater analysis was needed from the lower court to determine if the University of Texas was in fact within its rights, using race in limited circumstances. Public universities in states without laws against race-based preferences can continue to use race in admissions as one of several considerations.
Deepen your bench. Good litigators get legal justice. Great litigators get financial justice by hiring professionals with proven testimony experience. At O’Keefe, our litigation support professionals understand the litigation process and can identify, interpret and simplify complex financial data in a way that is easily understood and supported by fact and theory. We have extensive testimony experience in state and federal courts, depositions and arbitration proceedings across a broad range of industries and litigation matters. Our litigation support professionals are well-versed in providing: • Case strategy • Discovery assistance • Rebuttal of economic damages • Economic damage analysis • Expert witness testimony When you need financial justice, turn to the professionals at O’Keefe. Learn more at www.okeefellc.com.
Clarity. Results. Together.
Strategic Advisory Services
Turnaround & Restructuring
Performance Improvement
Litigation Support
Townships appeal tribunal’s tax breaks Focus Ashley Weigel
Capital News Service
LANSING — The battle against a property tax advantage for big box retailers has been taken to the Michigan Court of Appeals. Large retailers such as Meijer, Target and Best Buy can appeal to the Michigan Tax Tribunal to have their properties assessed at the “true cash value,” which usually results in lower property taxes. The communities with big box stores lose tax revenue. “True cash value” is defined as the “fair market value or the usual selling price of property.” Tax tribunal decisions in favor of a Home Depot in Breitung Township and a Lowe’s in Marquette Township were recently fought in the Court of Appeals. Attorney Stacy Hissong represented both townships in the appeal. “The impact of that decision will affect communities where there’s been an appeal,” Hissong said. While there have been many cases of the tax tribunal ruling in favor of the retailers, this was the first appeal of the lowered taxes in the court of appeals. The tax tribunal does not make it a “practice” to grant reduced assessments, said Peter Kopke, chief clerk of the tribunal. The decisions
are based on evidence brought to the judges. He said it is the townships’ right by law to challenge the appeal. The Michigan Retailers Association supported the original decision of the tax tribunal. “The townships propose a subjective valuation to real property that would penalize businesses for profitability,” William J. Hallan, the association’s senior vice president and general counsel, said in a statement. “Not only do the townships suggest a valuation approach that is unconstitutional, but it lacks uniformity, with the potential to result in an unfair and abusive application,” Hallan said. Rep. John Kivela, D-Marquette, and Sen. Tom Casperson, R-Escanaba, have introduced bills to limit the retailers’ ability to get around paying higher taxes, but neither bill has moved past its initial committee hearing. Larry Merrill, executive director for the Michigan Townships Association, said the assessed values of many of the stores are based on what the stores in Detroit are worth — which is virtually nothing, according to Merrill. The appeal was held April 8; Hissong said there could be a decision anywhere from three weeks to three months from the hearing.
A targeted approach to your advertising.
MAy 19
MAy 27
List: Top Area Banks Bonus List: Top Area Credit Unions Reserve space by May 8
List: Top Area Software Developers Bonus List: Top Area Office Equipment Dealers Reserve space by May 15
Finance
emerging technology trends
Advertise 616.459.4545 focus@grbj.com
Congratulations, Ron DeWaard! Class of 2014
Leaders in the Law
“The 2014 Leaders are attorneys who are changing the law, expanding access to justice and improving the profession and their communities.” – Michigan Lawyers Weekly
Ron DeWaard Contact Ron at rgdewaard@varnumlaw.com