Facts of the Case
Abigail Fisher, a white female, applied for admission to the University of Texas but was denied. She did not qualify for Texas' Top Ten Percent Plan, which guarantees admission to the top ten percent of every in-state graduating high school class. For the remaining spots, the university considers many factors, including race. Fisher sued the University and argued that the use of race as a consideration in the admissions process violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court held that the University’s admissions process was constitutional, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The case went to the Supreme Court, which held that the appellate court erred by not applying the strict scrutiny standard to the University’s admission policies. The case was remanded, and the appellate court reaffirmed the lower court’s decision by holding that the University of Texas’ use of race as a consideration in the admissions process was sufficiently narrowly tailored to the legitimate interest of promoting educational diversity and therefore satisfied strict scrutiny.
Questions
Does the University of Texas’ use of race as a consideration in the admissions process violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Conclusions
-
The University of Texas’ use of race as a consideration in the admissions process did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy delivered the opinion for the 4-3 majority. The Court held that the University of Texas’ use of race as a factor in the holistic review used to fill the spots remaining after the Top Ten Percent Plan was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. Previous precedent had established that educational diversity is a compelling interest as long as it is expressed as a concrete and precise goal that is neither a quota of minority students nor an amorphous idea of diversity. In this case, the Court determined that the University of Texas sufficiently expressed a series of concrete goals along with a reasoned explanation for its decision to pursue these goals along with a thoughtful consideration of why previous attempts to achieve the goals had not been successful. The University of Texas’ plan is also narrowly tailored to serve this compelling interest because there are no other available and workable alternatives for doing so. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent in which he argued that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment categorically prohibits the use of race as a consideration in a higher education admissions process. In his separate dissent, Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. wrote that majority’s decision was too deferential to the University of Texas’ determination that its use of race in the admissions process was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest and that the majority failed to properly apply strict scrutiny. Because the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause was enacted at least in part to prevent the government from treating individuals as merely components of racial class, race-based classifications, regardless of their purpose must be subject to the strictest level of constitutional scrutiny. In this case, the University of Texas’ use of race in its admissions policy cannot withstand strict scrutiny because the University’s interest is not sufficiently clearly defined and therefore judicial review to determine whether the policy is narrowly tailored is impossible. Even if it were, the goal of demographic diversity could only feasibly be achieved using impermissible quotas for racial balancing that are based on stereotypes. Justice Alito also argued that the use of racial preferences is unnecessary to achieve the goal of diversity because the admissions process could use a race-neutral holistic review based on life experiences that would achieve the same effect. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and Justice Clarence Thomas joined in the dissent. Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in the discussion or decision of the case.
Trump Administration Withdraws Guidance on Affirmative Action In Admissions
On Wednesday, July 3, the Departments of Education and Justice announced that they withdrew a...
Race-Based Admissions: Student Lawsuits Against Harvard and UNC Move Forward - Podcast
Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast
In 2014, the Students for Fair Admissions ("SFFA"), a membership organization comprised of students, parents,...
Fisher v. UT–Austin and the Future of Racial Preferences in College Admissions
Federalist Society Review, Volume 17, Issue 2
Note from the Editor: This article discusses the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Fisher v. University...
"Affirmative Action Gone Wild?": Supreme Court Upholds Race Preferences in Fisher v. University of Texas II
I like to think I am unusually gifted at political prognostication because, in 2004, I...
Supreme Court Rules on Affirmative Action and Immigration - Podcast
Civil Rights and Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Groups Podcast
On June 23, 2016, the United States Supreme Court issued a 4-3 decision in Fisher...
Decision Day Update
The Supreme Court released 5 more decisions this morning. Decisions in the other 3 cases...
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin - Post-Argument SCOTUScast
SCOTUScast 2-11-16 featuring Joshua P. Thompson
On December 9, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Fisher v. University of...
Most Popular Blog Posts of 2015
As a new year fast approaches, let's take a moment to look back at some...
Fisher II, Academic Mismatch, and the Constitution: A Legal Issue, or Just a Policy One?
Following Justice Scalia's controversial question about mismatch research at the Fisher v. Texas oral argument, some commentators have...
Fisher II, Academic Mismatch, and the Constitution: A Legal Issue, or Just a Policy One?
Following Justice Scalia's controversial question about mismatch research at the Fisher v. Texas oral argument, some...
Affirmative Action Again: Fisher v. University of Texas - Podcast
Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast
On December 9, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Abigail Fisher v. University of...
On Heightening the Contradictions of Grutter v. Bollinger: Thoughts on the Fisher v. UT Oral Argument
Yesterday, Justice Scalia's controversial question about mismatch theory at the Fisher v. UT oral argument...
How Far will Justice Kennedy Go?
Fisher II Oral Arguments
Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute writes: Coming out of oral argument in Fisher v....
Fisher II Oral Arguments Recap
Ilya Somin writes for the Volokh Conspiracy: [Yesterday], the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Fisher v. University...
Can college admissions consider race?
Short video featuring Gail Heriot discussing Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin
Gail Heriot, Professor of Law at the University of San Diego school of law, discusses...
Accreditation Overreach Part 2
Forcing Affirmative Action on Colleges and Universities
In my last blog post, I drew attention to my Wall Street Journal op-ed, "Why...
Supreme Court Preview: Of Fisher II and Paper Tigers
“There are not many dull moments in the debate about race preferences in university admissions....
NYT Misses the Mark on Mismatch
This past weekend, the New York Times ran a lengthy article titled "A Prescription for...
A Lady or a Tiger?: Thoughts on Fisher v. University of Texas and the Future of Race Preferences in America
Engage Volume 14, Issue 3 October 2013
Note from the Editor: This article is about the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Fisher...
Supreme Court Update: Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin - Podcast
Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast
The affirmative action case, Fisher v. University of Texas, was decided, 7-1, by the U.S....
Fisher v. University of Texas - Post-Decision SCOTUScast
SCOTUScast 6-25-13 featuring Gail Heriot and Peter Kirsanow
On June 24, 2013 the Supreme Court announced its decision in Fisher v. University of...
Book Reviews: Mismatch and Wounds That Will Not Heal
Engage Volume 14, Issue 1 February 2013
Note from the Editor: This feature reviews two new books on affirmative action in anticipation...
Fisher v. University of Texas: Affirmative Action Revisited by the Supreme Court - Podcast
Civil Rights Practice Group Podcast
Fisher v. University of Texas is being heralded as the blockbuster case of this year’s...
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin - Post-Argument SCOTUScast
SCOTUScast 10-12-12 featuring Gail Heriot
On October 10, 2012, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Fisher v. University of...
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin: Could the Supreme Court Revisit Its Decision in Grutter?
Engage Volume 12, Issue 2, September 2011
In Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court held that achieving the educational benefits that flow...
Diversity and Elimination of Bias CLE Teleforum: An update to the Harvard Case and the Meaning of Diversity in a Multi-Racial Era
Professional Responsibilities Practice Group Diversity CLE Teleforum
TeleforumDiversity and Elimination of Bias CLE Teleforum: The Harvard Case and the Meaning of Diversity in a Multi-Racial Era
Professional Responsibilities & Legal Education Teleforum
TeleforumAffirmative Action: Fisher v. Texas and Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard
Harvard Student Chapter
Harvard Law School1563 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138