Whether this Court should overrule its holdings in Bakke and Grutter that admission of students to professional schools is constitutionally protected expression

QUESTION PRESENTED Prospective university students starting in the fall of each year are customarily asked to finally decide on a single choice school on May 1 and schools have . agreed amongst themselves not to poach students committed to another school thereafter. Medical schools have taken it further by utilizing a collective admissions process and electronic check that ensure students are committed to only one school. Medical schools’ processes and electronic systems also allow schools to view each other’s admissions decisions in real time. The Petitioner, a past medical school applicant, brought suit alleging these restraints violate the Sherman Act. The District Court recognized that in any other context the anticompetitive nature of the restraints would give rise to a legally sufficient claim, but looked to the doctrine announced in Bakke and Grutter to conclude student admissions in higher education are noncommercial and beyond the power of the courts to supervise. The Court of Appeals affirmed. , The question presented is: 1. Whether this Court should overrule its holdings in Bakke and Grutter that admission of students to professional schools is constitutionally protected expression, ii PARTIES TO THE CASE The parties to the case are Samuel Pierce, Petitioner and Yale University, the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, and the American Association of Medical Colleges, Respondents.