Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard

Supreme Court of the United States · 2023 · Constitutional Law

affirmative actionequal protectionrace-conscious admissionsoverruling GrutterEqual Protection ClauseTitle VIstrict scrutinycompelling interest

Facts

Harvard and UNC each used admissions systems that permitted decisionmakers to consider an applicant's race as a factor in evaluating applications and making final admissions decisions. Harvard's process involved first readers, subcommittees, a full committee, and a final 'lop' stage, and race could affect overall ratings and later committee decisions; the record showed race was a determinative tip for a significant percentage of admitted African American and Hispanic applicants. UNC's first readers were required to consider race and ethnicity as one factor, and readers could give a race-based 'plus' that could be significant in an individual case; the review committee also could consider race. SFFA, a nonprofit membership organization, challenged both programs as unlawful racial classifications.

Issue

Whether Harvard's and UNC's race-conscious admissions systems are lawful under the Equal Protection Clause, and thus whether Harvard's program also complies with Title VI. More specifically, the Court considered whether the universities' asserted interests justify their use of race under strict scrutiny and whether the programs are narrowly tailored.

Rule

Racial classifications in university admissions are subject to strict scrutiny and are constitutional only if they further compelling governmental interests and are narrowly tailored, meaning necessary, to achieve those interests. In higher-education admissions, any permissible use of race must be sufficiently measurable to permit judicial review, may not use race as a negative, may not operate through racial stereotyping, and must have a logical end point. The admissions programs at issue did not satisfy those requirements, and Grutter is overruled to the extent it allowed them.

🔒

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 University in Ohio is a public university. It defends its race-conscious admissions policy by saying it seeks to "prepare students for an interconnected democracy," "cultivate empathy," and "train tomorrow's leaders," but it has no defined metric for any of those goals and no way to tell when they have been achieved.

If an applicant denied admission challenges the policy under the Equal Protection Clause, how should a court most likely rule?

Explanation. Racial classifications in admissions trigger strict scrutiny. Under the majority opinion, the university's asserted interests must be sufficiently coherent and measurable to allow courts to review whether the use of race is justified and when the goals have been reached. General aims like leadership training, empathy, and preparation for a diverse society were rejected as too vague and immeasurable. Deference to a university's academic judgment does not displace judicial enforcement of constitutional limits.