Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin
570 U. S. ____ (2013) (2013)
Rule of Law:
A court reviewing a university's race-conscious admissions program must apply a searching judicial inquiry under strict scrutiny and may not defer to the university's good-faith assertion that its policy is narrowly tailored. The university bears the burden of proving that available, workable race-neutral alternatives do not suffice to achieve the educational benefits of diversity.
Facts:
- Historically, the University of Texas at Austin (University) considered race as a factor in its admissions decisions.
- After a 1996 federal court ruling in Hopwood v. Texas deemed this practice unconstitutional, the University adopted a race-neutral holistic review system.
- The Texas Legislature enacted the Top Ten Percent Law, which granted automatic admission to Texas students in the top 10% of their high school class, which increased diversity at the University.
- Following the Supreme Court's 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger decision, the University decided to reintroduce the consideration of race as one factor in its holistic review for applicants not admitted under the Top Ten Percent Law.
- The University justified this change by citing a study and anecdotal reports to conclude it had not yet achieved a 'critical mass' of minority students.
- Abigail Fisher, a Caucasian applicant who was not in the top 10% of her high school class, applied for admission to the University's 2008 entering class.
- The University denied Fisher's application after evaluating it through the holistic review process that considered race as one of many factors.
Procedural Posture:
- Abigail Fisher sued the University of Texas in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, claiming the admissions policy violated the Equal Protection Clause.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The District Court (trial court) granted summary judgment in favor of the University.
- Fisher, as appellant, appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Fifth Circuit (intermediate appellate court) affirmed the District Court's judgment, finding the University's policy was narrowly tailored under a deferential standard of review.
- The Fifth Circuit denied Fisher's petition for rehearing en banc.
- Fisher, as petitioner, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, which the U.S. Supreme Court granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a court's review of a university's race-conscious admissions policy satisfy the requirements of strict scrutiny by deferring to the university's good faith determination that its use of race is narrowly tailored to achieve the educational benefits of diversity?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
No. A court must hold a university to the demanding burden of strict scrutiny and cannot defer to the university's good faith judgment on the question of narrow tailoring. Strict scrutiny requires a judicial determination that the use of race is necessary and that no workable race-neutral alternatives would suffice. The Court of Appeals erred by affording deference to the University's decision to reintroduce race as a factor in its admissions process. The university has the ultimate burden to demonstrate that its means are narrowly framed to accomplish its purpose, which requires a serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives. Because the lower court did not apply the correct standard of strict scrutiny, its judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for the court to conduct the proper, searching inquiry.
Concurring - Justice Scalia
No. The Constitution proscribes all government discrimination on the basis of race, including in state-provided education. However, because the petitioner did not ask the Court to overrule Grutter v. Bollinger, which permitted the use of race to achieve a compelling interest in diversity, joining the majority's opinion to remand for a proper strict scrutiny analysis is the correct course of action.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
No. The Court of Appeals failed to apply strict scrutiny. Grutter v. Bollinger should be overruled, and a state's use of race in higher education admissions should be held categorically prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause. The interest in the educational benefits of diversity is not a compelling state interest sufficient to justify racial discrimination, and such justifications echo the discredited arguments once used to defend segregation. Racial engineering, even if well-intentioned, is never benign and harms both those it purports to help and those it disadvantages.
Dissenting - Justice Ginsburg
Yes. The University's admissions policy should be upheld because it was crafted to comply with the Court's precedent in Grutter and flexibly considers race as only one small factor among many. The supposedly race-neutral alternatives, like the Top Ten Percent Law, are themselves race-conscious in their design and are insufficient to achieve the educational benefits of diversity. The Court of Appeals conducted a proper review, and its judgment affirming the University's policy should be affirmed without a remand for a second look.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthened the narrow tailoring prong of the strict scrutiny test as applied to affirmative action in higher education. While it left intact Grutter's holding that student body diversity can be a compelling interest, it clarified that courts must not defer to a university's judgment about the necessity of its race-conscious policies. The ruling placed a heavier, ongoing evidentiary burden on universities to justify their programs by demonstrating that workable, race-neutral alternatives have been tried and have failed. It signaled to lower courts that their review must be genuinely 'strict' and searching, potentially making it more difficult for such admissions programs to survive legal challenges.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin (2013)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"