Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.

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

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard
Term: 2022
Important Dates
Argued: October 31, 2022
Decided: June 29, 2023
Outcome
reversed
Vote
6-2
Majority
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett
Concurring
Clarence Thomas • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh
Dissenting
Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Ketanji Brown Jackson

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 29, 2023, during the court's October 2022-2023 term. The case was argued before the court on October 31, 2022.

The court reversed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit in a 6-2 ruling, holding that "Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."[1] Justice Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the majority opinion of the court. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Elena Kagan. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the dissent as to the consolidated case number 21–707, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recused from case number 20-1199, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard.[1] Click here for more information about the ruling.

When the Supreme Court granted review in the case on January 24, 2022, the case was consolidated with Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina. On July 22, 2022, the cases were no longer consolidated. The cases were decided in one opinion. Click here for more information about the ruling.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (SFFA) challenged the admissions programs of Harvard University, and argued that the university's use of race as a factor in admissions violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment.[2][3] SFFA asked the Supreme Court to overrule its 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger that upheld the use of race-conscious admissions programs so long as they were narrowly tailored for a compelling interest.[2] Click here to learn more about the cases' background details.
  • The issue: The case concerned the legality of institutions of higher education using race as a factor in admissions decisions.
  • The questions presented:
    1. "Should this Court overrule Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), and hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions?
    2. "Title VI of the Civil Rights Act bans race-based admissions that, if done by a public university, would violate the Equal Protection Clause. Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 276 n.23 (2003). Is Harvard violating Title VI by penalizing Asian-American applicants, engaging in racial balancing, overemphasizing race, and rejecting workable race neutral alternatives?"[4]
  • The outcome In a 6-2 ruling, the court reversed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit.


    • Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit. Click here to review the lower court's opinion.[2]

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard:

    Background

    Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (SFFA), the plaintiff in both consolidated cases, challenged the legality of the race-conscious admissions programs used by institutions of higher education that receive federal funding. SFFA alleged that these programs violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment.

    Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

    The case law on race-conscious admissions programs is governed by the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger, which found that the University of Michigan Law School's admissions program did not violate the 14th Amendment or Title VI.[5] There, the court upheld the use of such race-conscious programs so long as the use of race is "narrowly tailored to further compelling government interests."[5] The court in Grutter established that a narrowly-tailored program must be flexible and non-mechanical, and it cannot use a quota system. It must also make a good faith consideration of race-neutral alternatives. Additionally, the program cannot "unduly burden individuals who are not members of the favored racial and ethnic groups," and the program must be limited in duration.[5]

    In the opinion's conclusion, the court stated:[5]

    “ In summary, the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the Law School's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body. Consequently, petitioner's statutory claims based on Title VI and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 also fail.[6] ”

    Factual and procedural background

    See also: Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College

    In the case at issue in this appeal, SFFA asked the Supreme Court to overturn its decision in Grutter and rule on whether Harvard University's policies violate Title VI and the U.S. Constitution.[2][3] Harvard, as a private university, is not subject to the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, but as a recipient of federal funds is governed by Title VI.

    In Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard, SFFA appealed to the Supreme Court on February 25, 2021, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit affirmed the decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts that found Harvard's admissions program did not violate Title VI.[2]

    On February 25, 2021, SFFA petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review. The court granted review on January 24, 2022, and consolidated the case with Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina. On July 22, the cases were no longer consolidated.[7]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[4]

    Questions presented:
    “
    1. Should this Court overrule Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), and hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions?
    2. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act bans race-based admissions that, if done by a public university, would violate the Equal Protection Clause. Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244, 276 n.23 (2003). Is Harvard violating Title VI by penalizing Asian-American applicants, engaging in racial balancing, overemphasizing race, and rejecting workable race neutral alternatives?[6]
    		 ”

    Oral argument

    The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument on October 31, 2022.

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[8]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[9]

    Outcome

    In a 6-2 opinion, the court reversed the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, holding that "Harvard’s and UNC’s admissions programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."[1] Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court.[1]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Chief Justice John Roberts wrote:[1]

    “

    For the reasons provided above, the Harvard and UNC admissions programs cannot be reconciled with the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause. Both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives warranting the use of race, unavoidably employ race in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping, and lack meaningful end points. We have never permitted admissions programs to work in that way, and we will not do so today.

    At the same time, as all parties agree, nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. See, e.g., 4 App. in No. 21–707, at 1725– 1726, 1741; Tr. of Oral Arg. in No. 20–1199, at 10. But, despite the dissent’s assertion to the contrary, universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today. (A dissenting opinion is generally not the best source of legal advice on how to comply with the majority opinion.) “[W]hat cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. The Constitution deals with substance, not shadows,” and the prohibition against racial discrimination is “levelled at the thing, not the name.” Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 325 (1867). A benefit to a student who overcame racial discrimination, for example, must be tied to that student’s courage and determination. Or a benefit to a student whose heritage or culture motivated him or her to assume a leadership role or attain a particular goal must be tied to that student’s unique ability to contribute to the university. In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race.

    Many universities have for too long done just the opposite. And in doing so, they have concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual’s identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice.

    [6]

    		”
    —Justice Chief Justice John Roberts

    Concurrences

    Justice Thomas

    Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion.

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas wrote:[1]

    “

    The great failure of this country was slavery and its progeny. And, the tragic failure of this Court was its misinterpretation of the Reconstruction Amendments, as Justice Harlan predicted in Plessy. We should not repeat this mistake merely because we think, as our predecessors thought, that the present arrangements are superior to the Constitution.

    The Court’s opinion rightly makes clear that Grutter is, for all intents and purposes, overruled. And, it sees the universities’ admissions policies for what they are: rudderless, race-based preferences designed to ensure a particular racial mix in their entering classes. Those policies fly in the face of our colorblind Constitution and our Nation’s equality ideal. In short, they are plainly—and boldly—unconstitutional. See Brown II, 349 U. S., at 298 (noting that the Brown case one year earlier had “declare[d] the fundamental principle that racial discrimination in public education is unconstitutional”).

    While I am painfully aware of the social and economic ravages which have befallen my race and all who suffer discrimination, I hold out enduring hope that this country will live up to its principles so clearly enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States: that all men are created equal, are equal citizens, and must be treated equally before the law. [6]

    		”
    —Justice Clarence Thomas

    Justice Gorsuch

    Justice Neil Gorsuch also filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Gorsuch wrote:[1]

    “

    In the aftermath of the Civil War, Congress took vital steps toward realizing the promise of equality under the law. As important as those initial efforts were, much work remained to be done—and much remains today. But by any measure, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 stands as a landmark on this journey and one of the Nation’s great triumphs. We have no right to make a blank sheet of any of its provisions. And when we look to the clear and powerful command Congress set forth in that law, these cases all but resolve themselves. Under Title VI, it is never permissible “‘to say “yes” to one person . . . but to say “no” to another person’” even in part “‘because of the color of his skin.’” Bakke, 438 U. S., at 418 (opinion of Stevens, J.). [6]

    		”
    —Justice Neil Gorsuch

    Justice Kavanaugh

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh also filed a concurring opinion.

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh wrote:[1]

    “

    JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, JUSTICE KAGAN, and JUSTICE JACKSON disagree with the Court’s decision. I respect their views. They thoroughly recount the horrific history of slavery and Jim Crow in America, cf. Bakke, 438 U. S., at 395–402 (opinion of Marshall, J.), as well as the continuing effects of that history on African Americans today. And they are of course correct that for the last five decades, Bakke and Grutter have allowed narrowly tailored racebased affirmative action in higher education.

    But I respectfully part ways with my dissenting colleagues on the question of whether, under this Court’s precedents, race-based affirmative action in higher education may extend indefinitely into the future. The dissents suggest that the answer is yes. But this Court’s precedents make clear that the answer is no. See Grutter, 539 U. S., at 342–343; Dowell, 498 U. S., at 247–248; Croson, 488 U. S., at 510 (plurality opinion of O’Connor, J.). [6]

    		”
    —Justice Brett Kavanaugh

    Dissents

    Justice Sotomayor

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Elena Kagan. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined the dissent as to the consolidated case, number 21–707, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina.

    In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote:[1]

    “

    The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment enshrines a guarantee of racial equality. The Court long ago concluded that this guarantee can be enforced through race-conscious means in a society that is not, and has never been, colorblind. In Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954), the Court recognized the constitutional necessity of racially integrated schools in light of the harm inflicted by segregation and the “importance of education to our democratic society.” Id., at 492–495. For 45 years, the Court extended Brown’s transformative legacy to the context of higher education, allowing colleges and universities to consider race in a limited way and for the limited purpose of promoting the important benefits of racial diversity. This limited use of race has helped equalize educational opportunities for all students of every race and background and has improved racial diversity on college campuses. Although progress has been slow and imperfect, race-conscious college admissions policies have advanced the Constitution’s guarantee of equality and have promoted Brown’s vision of a Nation with more inclusive schools.

    Today, this Court stands in the way and rolls back decades of precedent and momentous progress. It holds that race can no longer be used in a limited way in college admissions to achieve such critical benefits. In so holding, the Court cements a superficial rule of colorblindness as a constitutional principle in an endemically segregated society where race has always mattered and continues to matter. The Court subverts the constitutional guarantee of equal protection by further entrenching racial inequality in education, the very foundation of our democratic government and pluralistic society. Because the Court’s opinion is not grounded in law or fact and contravenes the vision of equality embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment, I dissent. [6]

    		”
    —Justice Sonia Sotomayor

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2022-2023

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2022-2023

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 3, 2022. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[10]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 Supreme Court of the United States, "STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS, INC. v. PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE," decided June 29, 2023
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, Students for Fair Admissions v. President of Harvard College, decided November 12, 2020
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named pet4th
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard: QUESTION PRESENTED," accessed January 24, 2022
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 U.S. Supreme Court, Grutter v. Bollinger, June 23, 2003
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Order in pending cases," July 22, 2022
    8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued October 31, 2022
    9. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued October 31, 2022
    10. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Students_for_Fair_Admissions,_Inc._v._President_%26_Fellows_of_Harvard&oldid=9684879"