Fisher v. University of Texas (Fisher II)
579 U. S. ____ (2016) (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public university's race-conscious admissions program can survive strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause if it is narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits of diversity, and the university demonstrates that workable race-neutral alternatives would not suffice.
Facts:
- The University of Texas at Austin (UT) uses a two-part admissions system for in-state students.
- The state's Top Ten Percent Law guarantees admission to students who graduate in the top decile of their Texas high school class, which fills approximately 75% of the incoming class.
- For the remaining seats, UT uses a 'holistic review' process that evaluates applicants based on an Academic Index (AI) and a Personal Achievement Index (PAI).
- Race is considered as one of several 'special circumstances' sub-factors within the PAI score, alongside factors like socioeconomic status, family responsibilities, and language spoken at home.
- Abigail Fisher, a Caucasian applicant to the 2008 freshman class, did not graduate in the top 10% of her high school class.
- Fisher's application was therefore evaluated under the holistic review process.
- The University of Texas rejected Fisher's application for admission.
Procedural Posture:
- Abigail Fisher sued the University of Texas in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging the university's admissions policy violated the Equal Protection Clause.
- The District Court, as the court of first instance, granted summary judgment in favor of the University.
- Fisher, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, an intermediate appellate court, which affirmed the district court's ruling.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari (Fisher I), vacated the Fifth Circuit's judgment, and remanded the case, holding that the lower court had applied an overly deferential standard of review.
- On remand, the Fifth Circuit again affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the University.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari for a second time to review the Fifth Circuit's decision.
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 the University of Texas at Austin's use of race as one factor in its holistic undergraduate admissions process violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
No, the University of Texas's admissions program does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The university's compelling interest is not in achieving a racial quota, but in securing the educational benefits of diversity, such as promoting cross-racial understanding and preparing students for a diverse workforce. UT provided a 'reasoned, principled explanation' for its policy, supported by studies showing that its previous race-neutral approach was insufficient to achieve these diversity-related goals. The program is narrowly tailored because race is only one of many factors in a holistic review applied to a limited portion of the incoming class, and the petitioner failed to show that any proposed race-neutral alternatives were workable or would not sacrifice other legitimate educational objectives. The university has a continuing obligation to periodically re-evaluate its data and justify the ongoing need for its race-conscious policy.
Dissenting - Justice Alito
Yes, the University's admissions program violates the Equal Protection Clause. The university has failed to meet its burden under strict scrutiny because it has not defined its compelling interest with any specificity; terms like 'critical mass' are left vague and amorphous. UT's justifications are shifting and rely on pernicious stereotypes, such as the idea that the race-neutral Top Ten Percent Plan admits the 'wrong kind' of minority students. The university has not proven that its use of race is necessary or narrowly tailored, as it failed to show that race-neutral alternatives would not work, especially given the minimal impact the race-conscious portion of the plan has on admissions outcomes. The majority grants the university the exact kind of blind deference that the Court's prior decision in Fisher I emphatically rejected.
Dissenting - Justice Thomas
Yes, the program violates the Equal Protection Clause. A state's use of race in higher education admissions is categorically prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause. The Court's precedent in Grutter v. Bollinger, which permitted the limited use of race, was wrongly decided and should be overruled. The Constitution abhors racial classifications, and the government demeans all citizens when it makes race relevant to the provision of benefits.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the core holding of Grutter v. Bollinger, establishing that student body diversity remains a compelling interest that can justify the limited use of race in university admissions. It solidifies that a holistic, individualized review where race is one of many factors is the permissible model for a narrowly tailored program. However, the Court stressed that such programs are not permanent and placed a significant, ongoing burden on universities to periodically review data and justify the continued need for race-conscious policies, ensuring they are held to the rigors of strict scrutiny. The ruling provides a precarious green light for affirmative action, allowing well-designed programs to continue but subjecting them to constant re-evaluation and future legal challenges.
Unlock the full brief for Fisher v. University of Texas (Fisher II)