Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin
758 F.3d 633
5th Cir.2014Background
- Fisher sued UT Austin alleging its race-conscious AAP violated the Fourteenth Amendment; district court granted summary judgment for UT Austin and the Fifth Circuit affirmed, which the Supreme Court vacated and remanded for exacting scrutiny.
- On remand, the court must assess whether UT Austin’s holistic, race-conscious admissions are narrowly tailored to the educational benefits of diversity under strict scrutiny.
- UT Austin uses a Top Ten Percent Plan for automatic admission to most Texas residents; remaining seats are filled via holistic review that considers AI (academic index) and PAI (personal achievement index) scores as well as race in a contextual, non-numerical way.
- Fisher's standing arguments focused on mootness and causation; the Supreme Court did not address standing, but remanded for merits review.
- The majority holds that UT Austin’s holistic review, applied to a subset of the class, is narrowly tailored and necessary to achieve diversity in light of the Top Ten Percent Plan; the dissent would require a more explicit, de novo definition of the university’s diversity ends to justify the use of race.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether standing remains on remand | Fisher's standing to challenge the admissions decision persists | UT Austin contends standing is limited by mootness and causation | Standing discussed; remand Merits review proceeds |
| Whether remand to district court was proper | Discretion favors having district court reconsider with the exacting scrutiny | Remand would be duplicative and unnecessary | Remand not required; merits reviewed on the record on appeal |
| Whether UT Austin’s use of race in holistic review is narrowly tailored | Holistic review is not narrowly tailored; reliance on “critical mass” is undefined | Race is a necessary complement to Top Ten Percent Plan to achieve diversity | Affirmed narrow tailoring under Fisher standards; race used as a factor of a factor within holistic review |
| What constitutes the university’s diversity goal and its sufficiency for strict scrutiny | “Critical mass” is ill-defined and prevents meaningful strict scrutiny | Diversity defined by educational benefits; rigorous review demonstrates necessity | Court defines strict scrutiny without deference; requires clear ends and means-to-ends fit |
Key Cases Cited
- Bakke v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 438 U.S. 265 (U.S. 1978) (diversity as a permissible goal; not a quota; race as one factor among many)
- Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (U.S. 2003) (diversity as a compelling interest; narrowly tailored means; deference limited under Fisher)
- Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (U.S. 2003) (race cannot be the defining feature; nonuniform treatment; strict scrutiny applies)
- Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (U.S. 1995) (strict scrutiny applies to all racial classifications; no deference to government)
- Croson Co. v. City of Richmond, 488 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1989) (strict scrutiny requires fit between ends and means; narrow tailoring; last resort to use of race)