Facts
- Texas law required the University of Texas at Austin (UT) to admit in-state applicants graduating in the top ten percent of their high school class, which filled most in-state freshman seats.
- UT filled remaining seats through a holistic review combining an Academic Index (class rank and test scores) and a Personal Achievement Index (essays and a score considering leadership and “special circumstances,” including race as one factor).
- Abigail Noel Fisher, a white Texas resident, applied for the Fall 2008 class outside the top-ten-percent route, was reviewed under the holistic process, and was denied admission.
- Fisher sued UT officials, alleging that considering race in undergraduate admissions violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The district court denied injunctive relief and granted summary judgment to UT, treating governing precedent as controlling.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed, applying substantial deference to UT both as to its diversity interest and as to whether the plan was narrowly tailored.
Issues
- Whether the Fifth Circuit correctly applied strict scrutiny to UT’s consideration of race in undergraduate admissions.
- What level of judicial deference, if any, is permissible when reviewing whether a race-conscious admissions plan is narrowly tailored.
- Whether UT must show that workable race-neutral alternatives would not achieve the educational benefits of diversity before using race.
Decision
- The Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit’s judgment and remanded.
- The Court accepted existing precedent permitting consideration of race as one factor in admissions for the educational benefits of diversity and did not revisit that general rule.
- The Court held the Fifth Circuit erred by deferring to UT on narrow tailoring and by effectively shifting the burden to Fisher to disprove UT’s good faith.
- The Court directed lower courts on remand to conduct a rigorous review of how the admissions process operates and whether UT proved the necessity of using race in light of available race-neutral measures, including the Top Ten Percent Law.
Legal Principles
- Government action classifying individuals by race is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.
- A university may assert a compelling interest in the educational benefits of a diverse student body, and courts may give limited deference to the institution’s academic judgment that diversity supports its educational mission, absent racial balancing.
- No deference is owed on narrow tailoring; courts must independently determine whether race is used in a manner that evaluates applicants as individuals and does not make race the defining feature of an application.
- The burden of proof remains on the university to show its use of race is clearly justified and necessary to achieve the stated compelling interest.
- Narrow tailoring requires a showing, supported by evidence, that available workable race-neutral alternatives would not produce the educational benefits of diversity about as well and at tolerable administrative expense.
Conclusion
The Court required genuine strict-scrutiny review of race-conscious admissions by limiting deference to the articulation of diversity’s educational benefits while demanding rigorous judicial testing of narrow tailoring, including whether workable race-neutral alternatives could achieve comparable diversity goals.