ifornia Constitution. The respondent students argued that while Section 6060 is not racially discriminatory on its face, as enforced by the California Bar Association it discriminates against minority law students, Hispanic students in particular. The respondent students asserted that a majority of Hispanic law students are enrolled in unaccredited schools in California. Because Hispanic students are much more likely to be enrolled in unaccredited schools and because only students enrolled in unaccredited schools are prohibited from graduating in three years, Section 6060 has a disparate impact upon a discrete and insular minority. Consequently, Section 6060 should be subjected to strict scrutiny. Under strict scrutiny, argued the respondents, Section 6060 should be invalidated as a whole, since the state could have no compelling reason which justified this distinction.
The California Bar Association argued that the section should not be subjected to strict scrutiny because it was facially neutral and not motivated by any discrimi
...