## Facts

- Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. (SFFA) sued Harvard College, alleging its undergraduate admissions program discriminated against Asian American applicants and used impermissible racial balancing and racial preferences.
- Harvard used a race-conscious admissions process in which race could be considered as one factor among many in an individualized evaluation of applicants.
- SFFA challenged the program under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which applies to institutions receiving federal funds.
- After a bench trial, the federal district court upheld Harvard’s program; the First Circuit affirmed.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari and decided the case alongside a companion challenge to the University of North Carolina’s admissions program.

## Issues

1. Whether SFFA had standing to challenge Harvard’s admissions policy.
2. Whether Harvard’s consideration of race in admissions complied with Title VI, applying Equal Protection standards.
3. Whether Harvard’s asserted interests in the educational benefits of diversity satisfied strict scrutiny and, if so, whether the use of race was narrowly tailored with workable limits and end points.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the First Circuit in a 6–3 decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts.
- The Court held SFFA had organizational standing based on identifiable members who would have standing in their own right.
- The Court held Harvard’s admissions program violated the Equal Protection Clause and therefore violated Title VI.
- The Court concluded Harvard’s asserted diversity-related interests were not stated with sufficient clarity or measurability to satisfy strict scrutiny as implemented.
- The Court found the program used race in ways inconsistent with strict scrutiny, including treating race as outcome-determinative for a meaningful share of admitted underrepresented minority applicants, employing race negatively, involving racial stereotyping, and lacking a meaningful end point.
- The Court stated universities may consider an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life when tied to the applicant’s individual qualities or abilities, but may not use essays as a substitute method to reinstate racial classifications.

## Legal Principles

- Title VI forbids racial classifications by federally funded institutions to the same extent the Equal Protection Clause forbids them if used by a state actor.
- All governmental racial classifications are subject to strict scrutiny and must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest.
- A race-conscious admissions program fails strict scrutiny where its objectives are not sufficiently concrete to permit judicial review, where race operates as a decisive factor for applicants, where the program uses race in a negative manner or relies on racial stereotyping, or where it lacks a meaningful time limit or end point.
- Admissions decisions must treat applicants as individuals; race may be considered only insofar as an applicant describes race-related experiences that demonstrate individual character or ability, not as race itself.

## Conclusion

The Court invalidated Harvard’s race-conscious admissions program under Equal Protection and Title VI, substantially limiting the use of race in higher-education admissions while permitting consideration of an applicant’s race-related experiences only when evaluated as part of individualized, non-classification-based review.


Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 600 U.S. 181 (2023)