Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin
631 F.3d 213
5th Cir.2011Background
- Fisher and Michalewiez, Texas residents, were denied UT Austin undergraduate admission for Fall 2008.
- Plaintiffs alleged race-based violations of the Fourteenth Amendment and federal civil rights laws seeking damages and injunctive relief.
- District court granted summary judgment for UT, finding no liability.
- The court’s posture focuses on UT’s admission process as applied to Fisher and Michalewiez, with later years used for illumination.
- UT’s program is modeled on Grutter v. Bollinger and operates alongside a legislatively mandated Top Ten Percent Law.
- Hopwood ended race-based undergraduate admissions in Texas; Grutter revived consideration of race with five-year reviews and sunset-type concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of UT's Grutter-like plan | Fisher challenges that UT's plan violates strict scrutiny. | UT argues deference to educational judgments permits race-consciousness under Grutter. | Constitutional under Grutter framework with deference |
| Narrow tailoring and avoidance of quotas | UT's plan risks racial balancing and fixed targets. | Plan is holistic and not a quota; avoids fixed minority set-asides. | Plan narrowly tailored under Grutter |
| Role and impact of Top Ten Percent Law | Top Ten Percent already achieves critical mass; race-conscious plan unnecessary. | Top Ten Percent is a race-neutral proxy that complements, not substitutes for, Grutter plan. | Top Ten Percent not a constitutionally mandated alternative; still relevant |
| Critical mass and classroom diversity | Minority enrollment pre-2004 already reached critical mass; further race consideration is unwarranted. | Critical mass is defined by educational benefits, not fixed numbers; diversity in classrooms matters. | No fixed numerical threshold; reliance on 'educational benefits' upheld |
| Use of race as a 'special circumstance' in Personal Achievement Index | Race as a factor risks improper weighting and discrimination. | Race is one contextual factor among many and not weighed alone. | Race as part of holistic context permissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (U.S. 2003) (upholds narrowly tailored use of race to achieve diversity in higher education)
- Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (U.S. 2003) (rejects fixed-point racial bonus; emphasizes individualized review)
- Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (U.S. 1978) (limits racial set-asides and endorses individualized consideration)
- Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996) (prohibited race-based admissions in Texas higher education at that time)
- Ricci v. DeStefano, 129 S. Ct. 2658 (U.S. 2009) (strong-basis-in-evidence standard in race-based remedies discussed for context)
- Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (U.S. 2007) (endorses rigorous yet nuanced scrutiny of race-conscious plans in education)
- United States v. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1989) (limits quotas; emphasizes scrutiny of race-based remedies)
- Wygant v. Jackson Bd. of Educ., 476 U.S. 267 (U.S. 1986) (discusses narrow tailoring and burden on minority remedies)