of Michigan for the Fall 1995 semester. However, Gratz argues that she did fill out the paperwork for said waiting list, but the University claims it got lost. Opinion of the court Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the court. The court's majority found that Gratz and co-plaintiff Hamacher had standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief, relying on Northeastern Fla. Chapter, Associated Gen. Contractors of America v. Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656 (1993). Here the "injury in fact" necessary to establish standing in the case was the denial of equal treatment resulting from the imposition of the barrier, and not in the ultimate inability to obtain the benefit. The court held that because the university’s use of race in its current freshman admissions policy was not narrowly tailored to achieve the respondents' asserted interest in diversity, the policy violated the Equal Protection Clause. Dissent Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg dissented. Ginsburg wrote that "government decisionmakers may properly distinguish between policies of exclusion and inclusion...Actions designed to burden groups long denied full citizenship stature are not sensibly ranked with measures taken to hasten the day when entrenched discrimination and its after effects have been extirpated." See also Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) List of class action lawsuits List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 539 References Further reading External links Transcript of April 1, 2003 Supreme Court arguments (PDF format) United States equal protection case law United States affirmative action case law 2003 in United States case law Class action lawsuits University of Michigan University and college admissions Legal history of Michigan United States Supreme Court cases United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court United States racial discrimination case law