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

Supreme Court of the United States · 2023 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawEqual ProtectionTitle VICollege AdmissionsStandingStrict ScrutinyEqual Protection ClauseTitle VI

Facts

Harvard and UNC each used admissions systems in which race could affect individual admissions decisions. At Harvard, first readers, regional subcommittees, the full admissions committee, and the final 'lop' process could take race into account, and Harvard tracked racial composition to avoid a dramatic drop-off in minority admissions. At UNC, readers were required to consider race as one factor, could give a substantial racial 'plus,' and review committees could also consider race. SFFA, a nonprofit membership organization formed to defend equal protection rights, challenged both programs.

Issue

Whether SFFA had standing to sue, and whether Harvard's and UNC's race-conscious admissions systems are lawful under the Equal Protection Clause, and therefore under Title VI as applied to Harvard. More specifically, the Court considered whether these programs satisfy strict scrutiny and the limits previously imposed on the use of race in university admissions.

Rule

Racial classifications by the government are subject to strict scrutiny and are constitutional only if they further a compelling governmental interest and are narrowly tailored, meaning necessary, to achieve that interest. In the university admissions context, any use of race must be sufficiently measurable for judicial review, may not use race as a stereotype or as a negative, and must have a logical end point. An organization has representational standing under Hunt when its members would have standing, the interests are germane to its purpose, and neither the claims nor relief require individual member participation.

🔒

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.

Equal Access Now, a nonprofit in Chicago, has 60 voluntary members who pay dues, receive updates, and authorize the group to sue on their behalf. Three members were denied admission to a state university in Ohio and allege the university's admissions policy considers race. The organization seeks only declaratory and injunctive relief.

Does Equal Access Now most likely have representational standing to challenge the admissions policy?

Explanation. An organization may sue as representative of its members when Hunt's three requirements are met: members would have standing in their own right, the interests are germane to the organization's purpose, and neither the claims nor the relief require individual member participation. The majority rejected any added requirement that an actual voluntary membership organization must also show member control or exclusive member funding. Here, the organization has identifiable voluntary members, the suit fits its mission, and declaratory/injunctive relief does not require each member's participation. (Derived from Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (2023).)