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
Docket number: 20-1199
Term: 2022
Court: United States Supreme Court
Important dates
Argued: October 31, 2022
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson

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

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. Click here to learn more about the case's background.

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.[1][2] 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.[1] Click here to learn more about the cases' background details.
  • The issue: The case concerns 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?"[3]
  • The outcome The appeal is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court.


    • 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.[1]

    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.[4] 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."[4] 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.[4]

    In the opinion's conclusion, the court stated:[4]

    “ 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.[5] ”

    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.[1][2] 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.[1]

    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.[6]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[3]

    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?[5]
    		 ”

    Oral argument

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

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[7]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[8]

    Outcome

    The case is pending adjudication before the U.S. Supreme Court.

    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.[9]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, Students for Fair Admissions v. President of Harvard College, decided November 12, 2020
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named pet4th
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard: QUESTION PRESENTED," accessed January 24, 2022
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 U.S. Supreme Court, Grutter v. Bollinger, June 23, 2003
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Order in pending cases," July 22, 2022
    7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued October 31, 2022
    8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued October 31, 2022
    9. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    v • e
    Ballotpedia
    About
    Executive: Leslie Graves, President • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Michelle Robinson, Senior Product Manager, Education & School Boards

    Communications: Alison Graves • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Sarah Groat • Erica Shumaker • Caitlin Vanden Boom
    External Relations: Moira Delaney • Hannah Nelson • Caroline Presnell
    Operations: Meghann Olshefski • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Kelly Rindfleisch
    Policy: Christopher Nelson • Caitlin Styrsky • Molly Byrne • Jimmy McAllister • Samuel Postell
    Research: Josh Altic • Vojsava Ramaj
    Tech: Matt Latourelle • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez

    Contributors: Scott Rasmussen
    Editorial
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Students_for_Fair_Admissions,_Inc._v._President_%26_Fellows_of_Harvard&oldid=9004739"