Smith v. University of Washington

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Torts

Tortsaffirmative actionequal protectionlaw school admissionsstrict scrutinystrict scrutinynarrow tailoringeducational diversity

Facts

During 1994-1996, the Law School received about 2,000 applications for approximately 165 positions and used an index score based on GPA and LSAT to separate presumptive admits from presumptive denies. The Law School did not use quotas, targets, or goals, but did consider race and ethnicity as a plus factor among many diversity factors, while also considering nonracial factors such as cultural background, life experiences, achievements, and talents. Plaintiffs challenged three features of the program: an ethnicity substantiation letter sent to some minority applicants, a slight plus for Asian American applicants, and the referral of many white applicants to the Admissions Committee rather than direct admission. The district court found the program narrowly tailored, and the appellate court accepted the relevant factual findings as not clearly erroneous.

Issue

Whether the University of Washington Law School's consideration of race and ethnicity in admissions during 1994-1996 was narrowly tailored to further the compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits of a diverse student body. More specifically, the question was whether the ethnicity substantiation letter, the plus for Asian American applicants, or the referral practices for white applicants rendered the admissions program unconstitutional.

Rule

A race-conscious university admissions program survives strict scrutiny only if it is narrowly tailored to further the compelling interest of educational diversity. As measured against Grutter, relevant hallmarks of narrow tailoring include the absence of quotas, individualized and holistic review of applicants, serious good-faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives, no undue harm to members of any racial group, and a time limitation or endpoint; race may be used as a flexible plus factor but not as an automatic or decisive bonus.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lakeview State Law Center in Milwaukee uses a 100-point admissions index. Every applicant who checks a designated minority box automatically receives 18 points, and applicants above 82 are admitted without further file review. The school says diversity is important, but it does not vary the award based on the applicant’s individual experiences.

If challenged under strict scrutiny, which is the strongest argument that the policy is not narrowly tailored?

Explanation. The controlling rule is that race may be considered only as a flexible plus factor in a highly individualized, holistic review, not as an automatic or decisive bonus. A fixed number of points awarded solely because of race resembles the unconstitutional mechanical approach contrasted with the Harvard-type process approved by the court. (Derived from Smith v. University of Washington (n.d.).)