The Supreme Court addressed the admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School in Grutterv. Bollinger (2003). Justice Sandra Day O'C onnor wrote for the court, "in the context of its individualized inquiry into the possible diversity contributions of all applicants, the Law School's race-conscious admissions program does not unduly harm nonminority applicants." The primary issue in the Grutterv. Bollinger decision involves A national supremacy B judicial review C selective incorporation c D affirmative action

## Step 1<br />The problem is a comprehension question based on a legal case, Grutter v. Bollinger (2003). The case involved the Supreme Court addressing the admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School. The Supreme Court ruled that the university's race-conscious admissions program did not unduly harm non-minority applicants.<br /><br />## Step 2<br />The options provided are: A) national supremacy, B) judicial review, C) selective incorporation, and D) affirmative action. We need to identify which of these options is the primary issue in the Grutter v. Bollinger decision.<br /><br />## Step 3<br />The primary issue in the Grutter v. Bollinger decision is the university's race-conscious admissions program, which is a form of affirmative action. Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group "in areas in which the group is underrepresented in relation to the population at large".<br /><br />## Step 4<br />The other options, A) national supremacy, B) judicial review, and C) selective incorporation, do not directly relate to the primary issue in the Grutter v. Bollinger decision.