Washington ( CNN ) -- A divided federal appeals court on Friday struck down Michigan 's controversial ban on consideration of race and gender in college admissions . The 2-1 panel at the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals concluded the voter-approved ban on `` preferential treatment '' at state colleges and universities was unconstitutional , and `` alters Michigan 's political structure by impermissibly burdening racial minorities . '' The issue is likely to renew the national , political and legal debate over affirmative action , which the Supreme Court could be poised to resolve in the coming months . The affirmative action ban was passed five years ago in a referendum and was added to the state 's constitution , barring publicly funded centers of higher education from granting `` preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race , sex , color , ethnicity , or national origin . '' That prompted a series of lawsuits and appeals from various groups . `` The university is reviewing the possible implications of the court 's decision , and recognizes that there may be further legal steps as well , '' Kelly Cunningham , a spokeswoman for the University of Michigan , said Friday . She would not speculate how or when the school would need to alter its policies in response to the court 's ruling . A state appeal to the Supreme Court is almost certain , setting up a potentially heated election-year debate in 2012 over whether race and gender preferences are still a socially necessary step . The issue comes after the justices in 2003 ruled that while Michigan universities could use race as a factor in choosing which students to admit , they could not make race the determining factor in deciding whether applicants are accepted . The appeals court has now said the Michigan law violated the Constitution 's equal protection laws . `` Because less onerous avenues to effect political change remain open to those advocating consideration of non-racial factors in admissions decisions , Michigan can not force those advocating for consideration of racial factors to go down a more arduous road than others without violating the Fourteenth Amendment , '' said Judges R. Guy Cole and Martha Daughtrey , both named to the bench by former President Bill Clinton . In dissent , Judge Julia Smith Gibbons said voters had a right to pass this kind of referendum , even though school officials ultimately make the individual admissions decisions . `` Having no direct or indirect influence on the bodies vested with authority to set admissions standards -- the faculty committees -- the people of Michigan made a political change at the only level of government actually available to them as voters , '' said Gibbons . `` The Michigan electorate , therefore , as opposed to choosing a more complex structure for lawmaking , employed the one method available to exert electoral pressure on the mechanisms of government . '' The current controversy was sparked by the earlier Supreme Court decisions . In two cases from the University of Michigan , the divided high court said the university 's law school could give preferential treatment to minorities -- as one factor in the admissions process -- but could not set quotas or use a point system . Writing for the majority in the law school case , Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the Constitution `` does not prohibit the law school 's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body . '' The moderate-conservative O'Connor has since left the bench , replaced by the more right-leaning Justice Samuel Alito , who could prove the decisive vote if the current case reaches the Supreme Court . The referendum effort was led by Jennifer Gratz , who was at the center of the high court case eight years ago . As a white student , she was put on the waiting list for undergraduate admission to the state 's largest university . She eventually attended another school , and became the lead plaintiff in a subsequent reverse discrimination lawsuit . She ultimately prevailed at the Supreme Court -- long after she had graduated -- and then began a public campaign to end racial preferences in admissions . Efforts over decades to create a diverse classroom have been controversial . The famous Brown v. Board of Education high court ruling in 1954 ended segregation of public schools , but sparked nationwide protests and disobedience by states who initially refused to integrate . In 1978 in the so-called Bakke case , the justices said universities have a compelling state interest in promoting diversity that allows for the use of affirmative action . That issue involved a reverse discrimination claim by a white man denied admission to law school . And the high court in 2007 struck down public school choice plans in Seattle and Louisville , concluding race could not be a factor in the assignment of children . Those school districts had sought to use raced-based criteria to achieve diversity . The issue in recent years is whether and when affirmative action programs -- while constitutionally permissible now -- would eventually have to be phased out as the goal of obtaining diversity is met . O'Connor in her 2003 decision predicted , `` The court expects that 25 years from now , the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today . '' The justices could be asked to decide whether Michigan 's current policy meets that legal and social test . The current case is Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action , Integration , and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality by Any Means Necessary v. Regents of the University of Michigan ( 08-1387 ) .
The court concludes in a 2 - 1 decision that the photo - ID ban is unconstitutional . The case is likely to spark a national debate over affirmative action . The University of Michigan is reviewing the implications of the decision , a spokeswoman said .