Supreme Court's decision in Fisher v. University of Texas

The U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Fisher v. University of Texas this morning.  Attached is a copy of the Court’s decision along with a copy of Stanford's press release.  In essence, it’s a narrow 7-1 decision, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Kennedy. The Court holds that the Court of Appeals did not apply the correct standard of strict scrutiny in the case, and therefore vacates the Court of Appeals’ decision and remands the case for further proceedings so that the University of Texas’ admission process can be considered under the correct standard. Notably, the Court recognizes that its prior decisions have endorsed the conclusion that attaining a diverse student body may be a compelling state interest: “The attainment of a diverse student body . . . serves values beyond race alone, including enhanced class­room dialogue and the lessening of racial isolation and stereotypes.” (p. 6) In Grutter and Gratz, the Court reaffirmed that “obtaining the educational benefits of ‘student body diversity is a compel­ling state interest that can justify the use of race in uni­versity admissions.’” (p. 7) Grutter endorsed Justice Powell’s conclusion in Bakke that “the attainment of a diverse student body . . . is a consti­tutionally permissible goal for an institution of higher education.” (p. 9) “[T]he District Court and Court of Appeals were correct in finding that Grutter calls for de­ference to the University’s conclusion, ‘”based on its experience and expertise,”’ . . . that a diverse student body would serve its educational goals.”’” (p. 9) "There is disagreement about whether Grutter was consistent with the principles of equal protection in approving this compelling interest in diversity. But the parties here do not ask the Court to revisit that aspect of Grutter's holding." (p. 9) However, the Court concludes that the Court of Appeals misapplied the strict scrutiny standard by deferring to the University of Texas’ good faith in using race in its admissions process: “The District Court and Court of Appeals confined the strict scrutiny inquiry in too narrow a way by deferring to the University’s good faith in its use of racial classifica­tions and affirming the grant of summary judgment on that basis.” (p. 12) “In order for judi­cial review to be meaningful, a university must make a showing that its plan is narrowly tailored to achieve the only interest that this Court has approved in this context: the benefits of a student body diversity that ‘encompasses a . . . broa[d] array of qualifications and characteristics of which racial or ethnic origin is but a single though im­portant element.’” (p. 13) Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion also echoes a theme that he has expressed in his prior opinions, that the availability of race-neutral alternatives must be considered: "The reviewing court must ultimately be satisfied that no workable race-neutral alternatives would produce the educational benefits of diversity. (p. 11.) The Court’s decision will undoubtedly be the subject of extensive media coverage later today and thereafter, but I thought you might be interested in seeing the Court’s decision now. Please feel free to forward this to any of your colleagues who might be interested.

Last modified Tue, 25 Jun, 2013 at 12:47