I am shocked I tell you, just shocked!

Ruling on race in admissions gets wider use

"It's a very strong endorsement of the diversity argument, and that matters," Selmi said. "Even though the justices probably didn't intend for the Michigan ruling to have a broad application beyond education, that doesn't mean it will have no application beyond education."

The decision could be appealed to the full Seventh Circuit or to the Supreme Court.

Curt Levy, director of legal and public affairs for the Center for Individual Rights, which initiated the challenge to Michigan's policies, said the Seventh Circuit ruling should be expected when the high court issues what he called a "fuzzy" opinion such as Grutter.

The language in the opinion might have seemed to be solely about education, Levy said, but its strong endorsement of a nebulous concept such as the value of diversity made it amorphous.

"I think it's fair to say that, under legal precedent, diversity is not a compelling interest in employment," he said. "I think it's really a stretch to say it applies in this case. But the Michigan ruling was unclear enough to let lower courts do what they want to do."

Levy said that his organization was keeping track of how lower courts applied the Grutter ruling but that he was not encouraged by what might come of it.

"The law is in one place," he said, "and political correctness and what people do is in another."

Scalia voiced similar concerns in his November dissent from the court's decision not to hear Concrete Works of Colorado v. City and County of Denver.

Following the Michigan decision, he said, the court's denial of the case suggests the justices have replaced earlier rulings on affirmative action in contracting with the Grutter ruling.

I can't believe nobody saw this coming.