Which case struck down a point-based admissions policy as unconstitutional racial preference in public universities?

• A. Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)
• B. Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
• C. Reynolds v. Sims (1964)
• D. Buckley v. Valeo (1976)

Answer: (A)

This question tests how the Supreme Court treats race in public university admissions, focusing on the difference between a fixed, point-based system and a holistic review. In the Gratz v. Bollinger decision, the Court struck down the undergraduate admission policy because it automatically awarded a large, fixed number of points to minority applicants, effectively giving them a preferred status based solely on race. That creates a quota-like mechanism and is not narrowly tailored to achieve diversity, which is required under strict scrutiny for race-based classifications. The policy evaluated applicants more by race than by their individual qualifications, so it fails the constitutional standard.

By contrast, the companion Grutter v. Bollinger decision upheld a law school policy that considered race as one factor among many in a holistic review. It did not assign fixed points or create a quota, and the Court found this approach narrowly tailored to a compelling interest in diverse student body composition.

The other two cases listed deal with different issues entirely—one on legislative districting and the other on campaign finance—so they don’t address admissions practices. Thus, the case that fits the description is Gratz v. Bollinger.