The law school's policy took race into account only as one of many factors "to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."
Shanta Driver, a BAMN attorney, told ABC News that the proposal never should have been on the Michigan ballot to begin with.
Her organization says the proposal was not only unconstitutional, but also was voted in on faulty premises.
"Based on 10 years of experience in California, we have a strong case to make," Driver said, referring to California's Proposition 209.
"The loss of affirmative action creates irreparable harm. … Universities are still reeling," Driver said.
Connerly, however, believes BAMN will fail even if its case goes to the nation's highest court. He welcomes the lawsuit.
"[This] was tried before and was thrown out by the courts. … My greatest hope is that it reaches the Supreme Court of the United States because it will hasten the demise of race-based preferences," Connerly said.
But Driver continues to remain optimistic. "We feel that we can convince even a conservative Supreme Court that the conservative thing to do is to maintain affirmative action," she said.
"It is not only the morally right thing to do but the politically and socially judicious action to take," Driver said.
Meanwhile, Gratz still thinks true injustice lies in maintaining race- and gender-based affirmative action.
"This is the opposite of racism," she said. "If they want to take socioeconomic issues into account, they are welcome to do that."
What's next for Gratz and the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative?
"We're looking to end legacy preferences," she said.