## Facts

- White Washington residents applied to the University of Washington Law School in 1994–1996 and were denied admission.
- The law school used an index score (LSAT and undergraduate GPA) and then conducted an individualized review considering multiple factors.
- Race and ethnicity were considered as one factor among many; certain racial and ethnic groups could receive a “plus” in the overall assessment.
- The school also weighed non-racial diversity factors (e.g., life experiences, extracurricular activities, disadvantaged background, and career goals).
- The admissions process did not use quotas or fixed numerical targets, and some applicants could be admitted by an admissions administrator while others were referred to a committee.
- Applicants identifying as racial minorities received an “ethnicity substantiation letter” asking how race or ethnicity affected their lives; white applicants did not receive such a letter but could submit supplemental materials.
- Asian American applicants were eligible for a “plus,” which the school justified as supporting diversity within the Asian American population.
- After Washington adopted Initiative 200 (barring race-based preferences), plaintiffs’ requests for declaratory and injunctive relief were dismissed as moot, leaving only damages claims.
- After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment for the law school; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the law school’s race-conscious admissions program in 1994–1996 satisfied strict scrutiny by being narrowly tailored to the compelling interest in educational diversity under the Equal Protection Clause (and, correspondingly, Title VI and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983).
2. Whether the ethnicity substantiation letter, the “plus” for Asian American applicants, or the file-referral procedures showed an impermissible use of race that defeated narrow tailoring.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment for the law school.
- The court held that educational diversity is a compelling governmental interest.
- The court held that the 1994–1996 admissions program was narrowly tailored because it used holistic, individualized review and did not employ quotas or automatic race-based awards.
- The court rejected plaintiffs’ challenges to the ethnicity substantiation letter, the Asian American “plus” factor, and the referral procedures as insufficient to show unconstitutional use of race.
- Because the program survived strict scrutiny, plaintiffs’ damages claims under Title VI and §§ 1981 and 1983 failed.

## Legal Principles

- Educational diversity in higher education can qualify as a compelling governmental interest under strict scrutiny.
- A race-conscious admissions program may be narrowly tailored where it:
  - uses individualized, holistic review;
  - treats race as one factor among many;
  - avoids quotas, fixed numerical targets, and mechanical or automatic racial preferences; and
  - does not unduly burden applicants who do not receive a racial “plus.”
- Courts may presume good faith and afford limited deference to a university’s academic judgment about the educational benefits of diversity absent contrary proof.
- Measures seeking additional context about how race or ethnicity affected an applicant’s experiences may be consistent with individualized review if they do not operate as a rigid preference.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld the University of Washington Law School’s 1994–1996 admissions practices, concluding that the program permissibly considered race as one element of a holistic process and was narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling interest in educational diversity, defeating the applicants’ damages claims.


Smith v. Univ. of Wash. Law Sch., 392 F.3d 367 (9th Cir. 2004)