Supreme Court Affirmative Action.JPG

Tabrian Joe, a student at Western Michigan University, and other protesters in support of affirmative action, gather outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., Tuesday, Oct. 15, 2013.

(AP photo)

The U.S. Supreme Court decision on whether or not to uphold Michigan's controversial voter-approved ban on affirmative action in public university admissions is due any day now.

The court heard arguments on Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action on Oct. 15, 2013, and is expected to release an opinion anytime between now and the end of June.

"It wouldn’t be amazing if it happened Monday. It wouldn’t be amazing if it happened at the end of June, or any of those days in between," said U-M Law Professor Richard Friedman. "It's very hard to know."

The case looks at a 2006 ballot initiative passed by Michigan voters that amended the state constitution to prohibit government units from considering race in admissions and hiring.

Proponents of affirmative action, led by By Any Means Necessary and the American Civil Liberties Union, say the college admissions portion of the ban violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution by making it too difficult for students to lobby university governing boards to consider race in admissions, because doing so would require amending the state constitution.

Proponents of the ban, called Prop 2, including Michigan attorney general Bill Schuette, say the measure passed with support from 58 percent of Michigan voters and the court should uphold the will of the people.

University of Michigan used affirmative action before the ban was in place — even defending its use of race in admissions twice before the Supreme Court in the early 2000s — and will be eying the Supreme Court's decision.

"It's one that we will continue to watch very carefully," spokesman Rick Fitzgerald said of the case.

If the Supreme Court were to uphold the ban, it would preserve the status quo. U-M hasn't used affirmative action since the Prop 2 was passed in 2006. If the court were to strike down the ban — which many who watch the court say is not likely — Michigan could revisit its admissions practices and once again consider race in admissions.

"It would be a positive thing for all of the schools in the state" if the ban was struck down, U-M admissions director Ted Spencer said in an February interview. "You never know. You never know... I'm still being a little optimistic."

Minority students at the school have spent the last year rallying against a lack of racial diversity on the Ann Arbor campus.

Blacks comprise 4.6 percent of undergraduates this year, down from 8.9 percent in 1995 and 7 percent in 2006. In response, the school has promised to put more resources toward promoting diversity on campus.

U-M has put much of the onus for its low minority enrollment on Prop 2. The measure forbids schools from considering an applicant's race in admissions decisions and when offering financial aid packages.

"We're restricted in many ways by some of the court decisions, and particularly proposition 2, in trying to attract that diversity that we really want on our campus," Spencer said.

While many people understand the ban affects U-M's admission process, Spencer said they don't know that it also affects the school's financial aid process.

"The unintended consequences of this is that there are a lot of great underrepresented students that are going other places because in those states where there are referendums can't do those same kind of things [as other states] to attract them," he said.

A ruling on Michigan's affirmative action ban would impact bans in five other states: Arizona, Nebraska, Oklahoma, California and Washington

Jennifer Gratz, who sued U-M in the 1996 and eventually argued against the school's affirmative action policies before the Supreme Court in 2002, said that considering race in admissions is a "Band-Aid policy" that doesn't address systemic societal issues that have led to a lack of diversity on U-M's campus in the first place. She expects the Supreme Court to uphold the state's affirmative action ban.

"Sometime between now and June the people of Michigan will know that their state government cannot discriminate," she said.

She added: "If the University of Michigan is serious about [diversity], they would eliminate alumni and legacy preferences tomorrow. That isn't serving to diversify the campus and it isn't something that someone has earned."

The Supreme Court heard 11 cases in October, and have decided all but two of them. The court has also released decisions for 10 of the 12 cases it heard in November, six of the 11 cases it heard in December and four of the 12 cases it heard in January.

The lengthy period between oral arguments and the court's opinion illustrates that the issue being considered is divisive, Friedman said.

"What you can pretty well anticipate is that the court is divided," he said. The court is in session until June, and is currently scheduled for just two weeklong breaks during that period.

The Schuette case is the second affirmative action case the high court considered within one year. In a Fisher v. University of Texas decision released in June 2013 the court allowed affirmative action programs in that state to remain legal, but ordered a U.S. appellate court to reconsider an earlier ruling upholding affirmative action.

Kellie Woodhouse covers higher education for the Ann Arbor News. Reach her at kelliewoodhouse@mlive.com or 734-255-5303 and follow her on twitter.