In this book, Barbara A. Perry draws on her experiences as a judicial fellow at the Supreme Court, and relies on archival research and interviews with key individuals, to provide an in-depth examination of the University of Michigan affirmative action cases, Gratz v. Bollinger and Grutter v. Bollinger. She begins by describing the history of affirmative action in the United States, including a discussion of Bakke and other relevant cases. Next, she reviews the political context and judicial history of the Michigan cases. Then, Perry discusses the petitioner briefs, the University of Michigan briefs, and several important amici briefs submitted to the Supreme Court. She also summarizes the oral arguments before the Court and analyzes the rulings in the cases. Finally, Perry closes with a discussion of affirmative action policies in the aftermath of the Michigan rulings. Along the way, the reader gains insights into the experiences and motivations of many of the critical individuals involved in these cases.

Perry's examination of the Michigan affirmative action cases illustrates how the demographic characteristics, experiences, and ideology of the Supreme Court justices (and lower court judges) influence their rulings. The importance of the justices' characteristics is apparent throughout the book, but Perry provides the most details on Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Perry explains how O'Connor's background and experiences shaped the rulings in the cases and demonstrates that the petitioners and respondents carefully crafted their briefs to appeal to O'Connor's predispositions because she was the swing vote in the cases.

The book has several strengths, although here I will focus on the three most important. First, Perry discusses affirmative action in a balanced, neutral way. She articulates both the pro- and anti-affirmative action positions (and the reasoning behind those positions) with great respect. She does not create a straw man argument out of either side of the debate; instead, Perry presents an even-handed account of affirmative action and the Michigan cases in particular. I suspect that advocates from both sides of the issue might find her even-handedness maddening.

Second, Perry's primary goal is to illuminate the history, context, and details of the Michigan affirmative action cases. Perry meets that goal, but also goes beyond it. Her book offers more general insights into the judicial system as well. For example, readers will gain an understanding of the complexity of the judicial system and how slowly cases move through it. Readers will also be exposed to a number of legal concepts, which Perry nicely explains without interrupting the flow of her narrative.

That brings me to the third strength of this book. It is well written and easy to read. Perry provides an instructive and engrossing account of the Michigan affirmative action cases. She successfully conveys the abstract legal issues at hand while maintaining her focus on the concrete facts of these particular cases.

At the same time, the book also has limitations. First, Perry's analysis of the Michigan cases illustrates the importance of justices' characteristics and ideologies; however, her work is not grounded in models of judicial decision making, nor does it provide new theoretical insights into these models. Political scientists have developed a significant body of literature examining judicial decision making. For example, C. Neal Tate's classic work draws attention to the influence of personal characteristics on Supreme Court voting behavior (“Personal Attribute Models of the Voting Behavior of U.S. Supreme Court Justices,” American Political Science Review 75 [June 1981]: 355–67), and Jeffrey A. Segal and Harold J. Spaeth's attitudinal model focuses on the impact of ideology on judicial decision making (The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited [2002]). Considering how the Michigan cases shed light on these models and vice versa would have been a helpful addition to this book.

Second, Perry discusses many of the important documents in the Michigan affirmative action cases, but does not review the respondent briefs filed with the Supreme Court by the student intervenors. The lawyers representing the student intervenors (including Theodore Shaw of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund) argued that the Supreme Court should uphold the Michigan affirmative action programs because of historical and current racial discrimination. The student intervenors supported affirmative action as a policy promoting justice for racial minorities, whereas the University of Michigan supported affirmative action because it creates a diverse student body benefiting all students. The tension between these two perspectives is important, and exploring it would have provided a more thorough treatment of the Michigan cases. Further, an analysis of the lawyers and students behind these briefs would have provided a more detailed portrait of the people affected by the Michigan affirmative action cases. For a behind-the-scenes journalistic account of the student intervenors and their arguments, see Greg Stohr's A Black and White Case: How Affirmative Action Survived Its Greatest Legal Challenge (2004). In Perry's defense, the student intervenors were not given time to present their perspectives during oral arguments. As a result, she may not have viewed their briefs as fundamental to understanding the Michigan cases.

Despite these limitations, this work is valuable and will appeal to both a general and an undergraduate audience. General readers interested in affirmative action in higher education or in the workings of the judicial system will appreciate the book's balanced coverage of affirmative action, important insights into the Michigan cases, and clarity of writing. Faculty teaching introductory American government classes and courses on law and politics will find the book especially helpful for their undergraduate students. Because the book provides a bibliographic essay at the end, rather than formal citations throughout, it is less helpful for graduate students.

In sum, Perry provides an interesting and informative account of the University of Michigan affirmative action cases. Her work offers an impartial appraisal of the arguments surrounding affirmative action. Further, her examination of the Michigan cases illustrates many important aspects of the judicial system.