Legal Opinion
Connerly v. State Personnel Board
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 4, 2001No. C032042PublishedCited by 40 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SCOTLAND, P. J.
In this case, we consider whether five statutory programs that fall within the general rubric of “affirmative action” violate state and federal principles of equal protection and are contrary to article I, section 31, of our state Constitution, added by the adoption of Proposition 209 at the November 1996 General Election (hereafter Proposition 209).
The litigation, commenced by Governor Pete Wilson in his official capacity as Governor, challenges the statutory schemes on the ground that they impermissibly establish classifications and preferences based on race,…
2Cases cited55 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Stanley v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Regents of the University of California v. BakkeSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- J. E. B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B.Supreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. PenaSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
50 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- Horsford v. Board of Trustees of California State UniversityCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
- Connerly v. State Personnel BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- People v. McKeeCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- Carrancho v. California Air Resources BoardCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
- Connerly v. SchwarzeneggerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.