Another relevant question, raised by Justice Thomas's dissent. What is a compelling interest for a state government. Is that the same as a compelling interest for the federal government. Consider the possibility that while the national government has no compelling interest in providing legal education, state governments do.
But the question raised by Thomas's dissent is what justifies Michigan's decision to provide a superb legal education to lots and lots of non-Michiganders almost none of whom will stay in Michigan (as is the case, incidentally, with many Michiganders themselves). You will note that Thomas distinguishes the University of Texas Law School from Michigan because we have a rigid 80% local-residents quota (why THIS is constitutional is, of course, a separate question) and, as a matter of fact, most of our graduates practice in Texas. Michigan could argue, of course, that it is important to enhancing the education of those Michiganders who do attend UM that they have contact with cosmopolitans from outside Michigan, but I doubt that this really explains the numbers.
Next thing you know Thomas will be suggesting that courts scrutinize the alleged interest of state universities in running big-time athletic programs that wreck any plausible notion of "meritocracy" or, for that matter, public service (save for providing circuses to the masses)! Query: Can Michigan continue to grant a 20-point preference to any and all athletes who apply to the undergraduate program?
sandy
