The district court's order stemmed from a stipulation among the University Defendants, Coalition Plaintiffs, Granholm, and the Attorney General consenting to the injunction.

Consider, too, the stipulated injunction issued in the challenge to the Michigan anti-preference law: “[I] t is ordered that the application of Article 1, section 26 of the Michigan Constitution of 1963 to the current admissions and financial aid policies of [defendant Universities] is enjoined from this date through the end of the current admissions and financial aid cycles

—arguing that they were unnecessary parties, and should be dropped pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21

In the challenge to Michigan' s anti-preference law, the members of the governing boards of three universities were sued

At that stage of the litigation, only the Governor, the Attorney General (by intervention), and the universities whose policies were affected by this injunction were defendants in the case—and they all had stipulated to it

[BOOK] United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan: People …

[CITATION] Hastings Law Journal