Lexplug logoLexplug

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll.

Supreme Court of the United States
Not available (2023)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

University admissions programs that consider race as a factor to achieve a diverse student body violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such programs fail strict scrutiny because they lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives, unavoidably use race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points.


Facts:

  • Harvard College and the University of North Carolina (UNC) employ highly selective, holistic admissions processes where tens of thousands of students apply for a small number of positions.
  • Both institutions consider an applicant's race as one of many factors in their review.
  • At Harvard, admissions readers can and do consider an applicant's race when assigning an 'overall' rating. The full admissions committee discusses the racial breakdown of applicants to avoid a 'dramatic drop-off' in minority admissions from the prior year.
  • Harvard's process results in race being a 'determinative tip for' a significant percentage of all admitted African American and Hispanic applicants.
  • The lower court found that Harvard's consideration of race resulted in fewer admissions of Asian-American students than would have occurred otherwise.
  • At UNC, admissions readers are required to consider race as a factor and are permitted to provide an applicant a substantial 'plus' based on their race.
  • The nonprofit organization Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) includes as members students who were denied admission to Harvard and UNC.

Procedural Posture:

  • Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) filed separate lawsuits against Harvard College in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and the University of North Carolina (UNC) in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.
  • SFFA alleged that Harvard's admissions program violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and that UNC's program violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  • Following a bench trial in the Harvard case, the district court (trial court) ruled in favor of Harvard, finding its admissions program lawful.
  • SFFA, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (intermediate appellate court), which affirmed the trial court's decision in favor of Harvard, as appellee.
  • Following a bench trial in the UNC case, the district court (trial court) ruled in favor of UNC, also finding its program lawful.
  • SFFA filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Harvard case, and a petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment in the UNC case, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decisions.
  • The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in both cases and consolidated them for argument.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Do university admissions programs that consider an applicant's race as a factor in a holistic review to achieve a diverse student body violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?


Opinions:

Majority - Roberts, C. J.

Yes. The admissions programs used by Harvard and UNC violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Any exception to the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection must survive strict scrutiny, and these programs fail that test. First, the universities' asserted interests in diversity—such as training future leaders and promoting a robust exchange of ideas—are not measurable and lack a concrete endpoint, making meaningful judicial review impossible. Second, the programs are not narrowly tailored because they use race as a negative factor in a zero-sum admissions process, rely on impermissible racial stereotypes by assuming students of a certain race think alike, and employ arbitrary and overbroad racial categories. Finally, the programs lack a logical end point, as required by Grutter v. Bollinger, and instead amount to a form of unconstitutional racial balancing. While universities may consider how race has affected an applicant's individual life, they cannot use race itself as a determinative factor.


Concurring - Thomas, J.

Yes. The Constitution is colorblind and categorically prohibits all forms of racial discrimination, including so-called affirmative action. This principle is rooted in the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was intended to establish the absolute equality of all citizens before the law. The Court's decision in Grutter v. Bollinger was wrongly decided and is now, for all intents and purposes, overruled. Race-conscious admissions programs are pernicious because they harm all individuals, including their intended beneficiaries, by creating a stigma of inferiority and mismatching students with institutions where they may be less likely to succeed.


Concurring - Gorsuch, J.

Yes. The universities' admissions programs are unlawful under the plain text of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which provides an independent statutory basis for the Court's holding. Title VI states that no person shall, 'on the ground of race, color, or national origin,' be subjected to discrimination by any program receiving federal funds. The universities' practices of intentionally treating some applicants worse than others based on race are a clear violation of this command. The Court's prior decision in Bakke erred by equating Title VI with the Equal Protection Clause, when the statute itself provides a stricter, more direct prohibition against this form of discrimination.


Concurring - Kavanaugh, J.

Yes. This decision is consistent with and follows from the Court's precedent in Grutter v. Bollinger. Grutter permitted race-based affirmative action only as a temporary measure and established an explicit temporal limit, stating the Court's expectation that in 25 years, such preferences would no longer be necessary. That 25-year period has now passed. The Court's decision today appropriately abides by Grutter's explicit time limit on the use of race-based affirmative action in higher education.


Dissenting - Sotomayor, J.

No. The Court's decision rolls back decades of precedent and subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection by entrenching racial inequality in education. The Fourteenth Amendment, understood in light of its history and purpose, permits race-conscious measures to remedy the effects of a society that has never been colorblind. The universities' limited use of race is constitutional under the framework established in Bakke and Grutter, as it is narrowly tailored to serve the compelling interest of obtaining the educational benefits of a diverse student body. By ignoring the reality of persistent racial inequality, the majority cements a superficial rule of colorblindness that will have devastating consequences for students of color and the diversity of our nation's leadership pipelines.


Dissenting - Jackson, J.

No. The majority's decision ignores the significant, persistent, race-based gaps in health, wealth, and well-being that exist in our country due to its history of state-sponsored discrimination. Deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life; to the contrary, it condemns our society to never escape the past that explains why race still matters. A university's holistic admissions program, like UNC's, which considers race as one of many factors, is a constitutionally permissible way to conduct a true, individualized assessment of merit and to address the intergenerational transmission of inequality, benefiting all students and society as a whole.



Analysis:

This decision effectively overturns 45 years of precedent allowing race to be a limited factor in university admissions, as established in Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke and affirmed in Grutter v. Bollinger. The ruling establishes a much stricter application of the Equal Protection Clause to higher education, making it nearly impossible for universities to maintain explicit race-conscious admissions policies. The decision will compel selective institutions across the country to fundamentally overhaul their admissions systems, shifting their focus toward race-neutral alternatives such as socioeconomic preferences to achieve diversity. The narrow allowance for considering an applicant's personal essay on how race affected their life is likely to become a focal point for future implementation and litigation.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll. (2023)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"